COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2025 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 2025 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2025-07-08
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Lithuania, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, independence of the judiciary, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 8.7.2025  SWD(2025) 915 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2025 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 2025 Rule of Law Report                     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2025) 900 final} - {SWD(2025) 901 final} - {SWD(2025) 902 final} - {SWD(2025) 903 final} - {SWD(2025) 904 final} - {SWD(2025) 905 final} - {SWD(2025) 906 final} - {SWD(2025) 907 final} - {SWD(2025) 908 final} - {SWD(2025) 909 final} - {SWD(2025) 910 final} - {SWD(2025) 911 final} - {SWD(2025) 912 final} - {SWD(2025) 913 final} - {SWD(2025) 914 final} - {SWD(2025) 916 final} - {SWD(2025) 917 final} - {SWD(2025) 918 final} - {SWD(2025) 919 final} - {SWD(2025) 920 final} - {SWD(2025) 921 final} - {SWD(2025) 922 final} - {SWD(2025) 923 final} - {SWD(2025) 924 final} - {SWD(2025) 925 final} - {SWD(2025) 926 final} - {SWD(2025) 927 final} - {SWD(2025) 928 final} - {SWD(2025) 929 final} - {SWD(2025) 930 final} - {SWD(2025) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Lithuania  is  high.  Judicial  appointments 
across all instances are taking place in good time, and further steps were taken to improve the 
transparency  of  the  process.  Efforts  to  support  integrity  within  the  justice  system  are 
underway.  The  regulation  of  ‘revolving  doors’  in  the  Constitutional  Court  appointments  is 
being discussed in Parliament. Lawyers continue to express concerns regarding the respect of 
lawyer-client  confidentiality.  The  Judicial  Council  has  presented  a  proposal  to  amend  the 
Constitution to secure its right of constitutional appeal  concerning legislation impacting the 
judiciary.  While  further  efforts  are  being  made  to  allocate  adequate  human  and  financial 
resources  to  the  justice  system,  challenges  persist,  especially  in  recruiting  court  staff.  The 
judicial  map  reform  has  been  completed  and  is  expected  to  balance  the  workload  among 
courts. Steps were taken to finalise the reform of the legal aid system, such as implementing a 
pilot  project  aimed  at  ensuring  an  even  workload  distribution  to  legal  aid  providers.  The 
justice  system  is  highly  digitalised,  with  ongoing  enhancements  to  the  courts’  information 
systems, contributing further to its efficient performance, including in commercial cases. 

The  first  year  of  the  implementation  plan  for  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Agenda  was 
positively  evaluated.  An  implementation  plan  was  launched  to  address  shortcomings  in 
fighting  against  foreign  bribery.  The  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption 
offences  continues,  although  the  rate  of  acquittals  for  all  corruption  charges  remains 
substantially  higher  than  for  other  offences.  Various  initiatives  are  being  carried  out  to 
prevent  corruption  and  promote  integrity  in  the  public  and  private  sector.  While  non-
legislative  initiatives  are  taken  to  reinforce  the  existing  rules  on  asset  declarations, 
shortcomings remain in the legal framework. The new whistleblower protection framework is 
being implemented. The authorities continue monitoring and addressing the high-risk areas of 
corruption, including public procurement, through tailor-made initiatives. 

Changes to the funding model of the public service broadcaster (LRT) are under discussion 
while actions by the LRT Council raised concerns. The human resources of the regulator for 
audiovisual  media  services  (LRTK)  increased  slightly.  The  budget  for  the  Media  Support 
Fund  has  increased  significantly,  and  new  application  rules  make  more  media  service 
providers  eligible  for  funding.  The  implementation  of  the  Government  action  plan  for  the 
protection,  safety  and  empowerment  of  journalists  continues,  with  the  overall  situation 
regarding  the  safety  of  journalists  remaining  favourable.  The  situation  regarding  access  to 
documents improved, and journalists will have a right to access a new register of members of 
political organisations.  

The Ministry of Justice is implementing measures to enhance the quality of legislation. The 
mandate of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons was extended, and resources have been further 
reinforced.  Concerns  remain among  stakeholders regarding the involvement of civil  society 
in decision-making processes.  

1 

 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall,  concerning  the  recommendations  in  the  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Lithuania  has 
made: 

•  Some  further  progress  in  finalising  the  reform  of  the  legal  aid  system,  in  particular  by 
reducing the administrative burden and ensuring adequate conditions for the participation 
of legal aid providers, taking into account European standards on legal aid.  

•  Some further progress in continuing efforts to improve the transparency of the system of 
appointments  to  judicial  positions,  notably  to  the  Supreme  Court,  taking  into  account 
European standards on judicial appointments.  

•  Some  further  progress  in  continuing  efforts  to  provide  adequate  human  and  financial 
resources for the justice system, taking into account European standards on resources for 
the justice system. 

On this basis, and considering other developments that took place in the period of reference, 
it is recommended to Lithuania to: 

•  Finalise the reform of the legal aid system, in particular by ensuring adequate conditions 
for  the  participation  of  legal  aid  providers,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on 
legal aid. 

•  Step  up  efforts  to  improve  the  transparency  of  the  system  of  appointments  to  judicial 
positions,  notably  to  the  Supreme  Court,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on 
judicial appointments. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM 1 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Lithuania  is  high  among  the  general 
public and average among companies. Overall, 60% of the general population and 58% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  202512.  Among  the  general  public,  this  figure  has  increased  in  comparison  with  2024 
(56%),  as  well  as  in  comparison  with  2021  (55%).  The  perceived  judicial  independence 
among companies has decreased in comparison with 2024 (62%) and has slightly decreased 
in comparison with 2021 (60%).  

Procedures for judicial appointments to all instances are taking place in good time, and 
there  has  been  some  further  progress  to  improve  the  transparency  of  the  process3. 
During  the  reporting  period,  while  no  changes  were  introduced  to  the  system  of 
appointments, stakeholders note that its functioning has improved, with appointments taking 
place without the delays that were previously observed4. The Judicial Council and the Office 
of  the  President  of  the  Republic  have  been  cooperating  in  order  to  clarify  priorities  in 
announcing  competitions  and  appointing  candidates,  which  has  allowed  for  more 
straightforward  selection  processes.  Fewer  judicial  posts  remain  vacant  for  long  periods5. 
Regarding  the  transparency  of  judicial  appointments,  different  initiatives  have  been 
announced. The Government programme envisages new measures on the assessment criteria 
for candidates6. Discussions are ongoing between the Office of the President of the Republic 
and  the  Judicial  Council  regarding  the  objectivity  of  the  existing  criteria  for  evaluating 
candidates  to  judicial  posts7.  The  Judicial  Council  created  a  working  group  tasked  with 
proposing  concrete  changes  to  the  selection  process,  to  improve  its  transparency  and 
efficiency8.  While  the  President  of  the  Republic  retains  discretion  in  selecting  candidates, 
with no obligation provided in the law to provide reasons9, the Office of the President of the 

1   An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here 
2   Figures  50  and  52, 2025 EU Justice  Scoreboard and  Figures 49 and  51,  2024 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%). 

3   The  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  to  Lithuania  to:  “[c]ontinue  efforts  to  improve  the 
transparency of the system of appointments to judicial positions, notably to the Supreme Court, taking into 
account European standards on judicial appointments”. 

4   Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council. In 2024, the President of the Republic appointed 28 judges to the 
positions of district court judges, 14 judges to the positions of judges of higher-level courts, 3 judges to the 
positions of court presidents, 8 judges to the positions of deputy presidents and 4 judges to the positions of 
presidents of a court division (ENCJ, written input, p. 27).  

5   Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council and National Courts Administration. ENCJ (2025), written  input, 

p. 26. See also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 5. 

6   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 3. 
7   ENCJ (2025), written input, p. 26. 
8   The working group’s conclusions are expected in October 2025. Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council, 

9  

Office of the President of the Republic. 
Including when the decision diverges from the opinion of the Selection Commission, which continues to be 
object  of  discussion  among  stakeholders  (Civil  Liberties  Union  for  Europe  (2025),  p.  629;  EAJ,  written 
input, p. 8). See also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 4. The Court of Justice of the European Union 
has underlined that it is necessary to ensure that the substantive conditions and procedural rules governing 
the  adoption  of  judicial  appointment  decisions  cannot  give  rise  to  reasonable  doubts  as  to  the 
imperviousness  of  the  judges  concerned  to  external  factors  and  as  to  their  neutrality  with  respect  to  the 

3 

 
 
 
 
Republic has adopted a practice aimed at improving the transparency of these decisions10. In 
particular,  the  Office  of  the  President  of  the  Republic  now  presents  the  reasons  for  the 
appointment decisions orally during the meetings of the Judicial Council, which are publicly 
broadcasted.  Overall,  since  various  measures  have  been  taken,  there  has  been  some  further 
progress in improving the transparency of judicial appointments. 

The Judicial  Council  presented to the Speaker of Parliament a proposal to amend the 
Constitution  in  order  to  be  granted  the  right  of  constitutional  appeal  regarding 
legislation affecting the judiciary. In October 2024, the General Meeting of Judges adopted 
a decision calling for the Judicial Council to address the Constitutional Court on the question 
the of the compatibility of the specified acts with the Constitution and laws.11. The Judicial 
Council  considers  this  change  essential  to  achieve  balance  among  the  state  powers,  as  the 
executive and the legislative powers already have this right12. This request was submitted to 
Parliament, proposing an amendment to Article 106 of the Constitution. No draft legislative 
proposals in this regard have been registered in Parliament so far13. 

Initiatives to support integrity in the justice system are being implemented or are under 
discussion.  The  Special  Investigation  Service  (STT)  is  providing  training  for  district  and 
regional  courts,  with  the  aim  of  fostering  an  anti-corruption  environment  in  the  judiciary14. 
The National  Courts Administration has continued the work on the ‘risk map of the  justice 
sector’15, and has developed risk scales and impact values for risk assessment16. The issue of 
‘revolving doors’ in appointments to the Constitutional Court continues to be discussed17. A 
draft  law  concerning  the  grounds  for  self-disqualification  and  disqualification  of  judges  is 
being  debated  in  Parliament18.  The  procedure  for  the  appointment  of  judges  to  the 
Constitutional Court was slightly changed by the Parliament in June 202519.  

lawyer-client 
Lawyers  continue  to  raise  concerns  regarding  the  respect 
confidentiality. Lawyers’ concerns stem from practices such as the digital copy of lawyers’ 
devices seized in the course of criminal proceedings, the video recordings of interactions with 
clients  in  detention  facilities,  and  the  alleged  use  of  broad  language  in  search  warrants, 
allowing  for  the  seizure  of  documents  and  materials  that  can  be  covered  by  professional 

for 

interests before them, once they have been appointed as judges (see, e.g., CJEU, C-896/19, para. 57, and the 
case law cited). 

10   Country visit Lithuania, Office of the President of the Republic.  
11   Lithuanian  Government  (2025a),  written  input,  p.  6;  ENCJ,  p.  11.  See  also  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Lithuania, p. 24. 

12   Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council. 
13   The Judicial Council does not have legislative initiative. 
14   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 21. 
15   2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 6. 
16   Country visit Lithuania, National Courts Administration. 
17   See also 2023 and 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 6 and pp. 7-8, respectively. 
18   The draft envisages the express provision for disqualification of judges who have submitted to parliament 
or  voted  the  law  which  is  under  consideration,  as  well  as of  judges  who  had  political  affiliation  with  the 
party of one of the parties to the proceedings (Draft Law No. XVP-137). 

19   The amendment of Art. 4(2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Law No. XV-256) aims at clarifying 
the timing of the presentation of the proposed candidates for appointments before Parliament and aligns the 
end of the term of Constitutional Court judges with the beginning of the Spring session of Parliament,  in 
order to allow for a longer period of assessment of the candidates by Parliament.  The Law also explicitly 
includes the requirement of the equal number of candidates submitted by the President of the Republic, the 
Speaker  of  the  Seimas  and  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  process  of  the  appointment  of  the 
candidates as judges by the Parliament. 

4 

 
 
 
secrecy, as well as information leaks20. Lawyers consider that these practices may amount to 
violations of professional secrecy21. According to European standards, all necessary measures 
should be taken to ensure the respect of the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship. 
The Law on the Bar was amended to impose stricter conditions for access to the profession, 
and  now  provides  more  precise  regulations  for  assessing  good  reputation,  with  a  view  to 
ensuring higher standards of professional  ethics22. Lawyers continue to  raise concerns as to 
the  role  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  in  access  to  the  profession,  as  well  as  in  disciplinary 
proceedings of lawyers, which they consider detrimental to perceptions of the independence 
of lawyers23. 

Quality  

There  has  been  some  further  progress  in  providing  adequate  human  and  financial 
resources  for  the  justice  system,  although  some  challenges  remain,  particularly  in 
attracting  court  staff24.  Following  a  request  for  a  preliminary  ruling  from  a  Lithuanian 
court, the CJEU declared that the level of remuneration of judges must be sufficiently high, 
having regard to the economic, social and financial situation of the Member State concerned, 
in  particular  with  regard  to  the  average  salary.  The  CJEU  further  clarified  that  judicial 
independence  does  not  preclude  their  remuneration  from  being  established  at  a  level  lower 
than  that  of  the  average  remuneration  of  other  legal  professionals25.  The  reforms  of  the 
remuneration systems for prosecutors, civil servants, and other court and prosecutorial staff 
were  finalised  in  January  202526.  The  State  budget  for  2025-2027  increased  the  amount 
allocated to the justice system27, and additional funds were allocated to the salaries of judicial 
assistants. Courts’ administration can now transfer cost savings to a wage fund, which can be 
used for salaries28. Despite these new arrangements, stakeholders report that salaries have not 
yet been raised in practice29. No additional budget was allocated for the increase of salaries in 
the prosecution30. Consequently, concerns remain among the judiciary and prosecution as to 
the  difficulties  in  recruiting  and  retaining  staff,31  and  salaries  of  judicial  and  prosecutorial 
staff remain comparatively low32. The need to renovate court buildings has also been raised33. 

20   CCBE, written input, p. 132. 
21   2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 7. The case regarding alleged control of communications between 
lawyers  and  their  clients  brought  by  the  Bar  Association  before  the  ECtHR  (Application  no.  64301/19) 
remains pending. 

22   CCBE (2025), written input, p. 134. 
23   CCBE (2025), written input, p. 134. See also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 7. 
24   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended  Lithuania to: “[c]ontinue efforts to provide adequate human 
and financial resources for the justice system, taking into account European standards on resources for the 
justice system”. 

25   Judgment of the CJEU of 25 February 2025, joined cases C‑146/23 and 374/23.  
26   Regarding these reforms, see also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 8-9. 
27   From EUR 120.4 million in 2024 to EUR 122.5 million in 2025. While the budget allocated to the justice 
system has been increasing since 2021, the expenditure on Lithuanian courts remains among the lowest in 
the  EU,  both  in  absolute  terms  and  as  percentage  of  the  GDP  (Figures  33  and  34,  2025  EU  Justice 
Scoreboard). 

28   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 4. 
29   Such concerns have been previously raised, see 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 8-9. 
30   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, pp. 19-20. 
31   The  National  Courts  Administration  estimates  that  11%  of  the  posts  for  court  staff  remain  vacant 
(Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 18). ENCJ, written input, p. 27. According to European 
standards,  each  State  should  allocate  adequate  resources  to  the  courts,  a  sufficient  number  of  judges  and 
appropriately qualified support staff (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2010), para. 33). 

32   Figure 36, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

5 

 
 
 
The Judicial Council has called for a new court financing model, based on objective criteria34. 
Overall,  there  has  been  some  further  progress  in  providing  adequate  human  and  financial 
resources for the justice system. 

The reform of the judicial map has been finalised and is expected to lead to a more even 
distribution of workload among courts. Following the implementation of the final phase of 
the reform of the judicial map in January 2025, there are now 11 district courts and 26 court 
chambers  (previously,  12 district  courts and 43  court chambers).  This  was accompanied by 
amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and to the system of allocation of cases, allowing 
for  the  automatic  allocation  of  cases  in  district  courts.  This  allocation,  done  through  the 
Lithuanian  Courts  Information  System,  is  based  on  an  assessment  of  the  workload  of  the 
courts and judges. It is expected to ensure a more even distribution of the workload among 
courts,  allow  a  higher  specialisation  of  judges,  and  lead  to  efficiency  gains35.  Moreover,  as 
the optimisation of the existing resources is expected to lead to savings, the authorities plan to 
reinvest the savings in the justice system36.  

There  has  been  some  further  progress  towards  the  finalisation  of  the  reform  of  legal 
aid37. The Minister of Justice has prepared a draft order aimed at ensuring an even workload 
distribution to legal aid providers. This envisages the creation of a point system, based on the 
complexity  of  the  cases  allocated  to  lawyers,  according  to  which  the  number  of  cases 
allocated  to  the  same  lawyer  will  be  determined.  The  system  was  tested  as  a  pilot  project 
between March and May 2025, after which it will be discussed with the Bar Association and 
amended as necessary38. There are also efforts to reduce the administrative burden for legal 
aid  providers  through  the  simplification  of  the  Legal  Aid  Information  System39.  However, 
while  the  Government  programme  foresees  an  increase  of  remuneration  of  legal  aid 
providers40, no further measures in this regard were adopted so far, and the remuneration of 
legal aid for defence lawyers in criminal cases is the lowest in the EU41. The Bar Association 
has  voiced  its  concerns,  calling  also  for  the  revision  of  the  value  added  tax  on  legal  aid 
providers42. According to European standards, an appropriate level of remuneration needs to 
be  ensured  for  legal  aid  providers43.  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  has  submitted  a 
petition  to  the  Constitutional  Court  concerning  provisions  of  the  Law  on  State  Guaranteed 
Legal  Aid44.  Overall,  some  further  progress  has  been  made  in  implementing  this 
recommendation. 

The  level  of  digitalisation  is  high,  and  further  improvements  are  being  made  to  the 
Lithuanian  Courts  Information  System.  Electronic  communication  tools  continue  to  be 

33   ENCJ (2025), written input, p. 32. 
34   ENCJ (2025), written input, p. 27. 
35   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 11. 
36   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 4. 
37   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended Lithuania to: ‘[f]inalise the reform of the legal aid system, in 
particular by reducing the administrative burden and ensuring adequate conditions for the participation of 
legal aid providers, taking into account European standards on legal aid.’ 

38   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Justice. 
39   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 3. 
40   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Justice. 
41   Figure 25, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
42   While legal aid providers whose annual income meets the threshold of EUR 45 000 are subject to VAT, the 

hourly fee of EUR 25 remains unchanged in such cases. CCBE, written input, p. 135. 

43   Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2021), para. 22. See also CCBE (2023), point 3. 
44   Country visit Lithuania, Constitutional Court. 

6 

 
 
 
widely available, both for courts and the prosecution service. Digital solutions to conduct and 
follow  proceedings  in  criminal  cases  could  be  improved,  as  it  is  not  yet  possible  for 
defendants in  detention  to use  ICT  facilities to  prepare for hearings,  and  defendants cannot 
communicate  confidentially  with  their  lawyers  during  remote  hearings45.  The  project  to 
integrate  the  European  Case  Law  Identifier  (ECLI)  into  the  Lithuanian  Courts  Information 
System was finalised. A speech recognition software was introduced in courts, which is now 
being assessed for further improvement. The court information system is being modernised, 
including  through  the  integration  of  data  from  different  portals,  and  is  expected  to  be 
finalised on 3 November 202546. 

Efficiency 

The justice system continues to perform efficiently, particularly at first instance courts. 
In 2023, the disposition time in first instance civil and commercial cases (120 days), as well 
as in administrative cases (64 days) remained the lowest in the EU47. The number of pending 
non-criminal first instance cases remained stable and comparatively low. Courts continued to 
be able to resolve more cases than those received, keeping a positive rate of case resolution. 
While  no  commercial  courts  exist  and  general  courts  have  jurisdiction  over  commercial 
cases, stakeholders report  that this system  works well in  practice48. The amendments  to  the 
Law on Mediation adopted in June 2024 have entered into force and are expected to reduce 
the number of cases brought before courts, thus further contributing to the efficiency of the 
justice system49.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions 
Index by Transparency International, Lithuania scores 63/100 and ranks 12th in the European 
Union  and  32nd  globally50.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable  over  the  past  five 
years51.  The  2025  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  80%  of  respondents 
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 69%) and 23% of respondents 
feel  personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  30%).  As  regards 
businesses, 56% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
21%  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  35%). 
Furthermore, 45% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  36%),  while  49%  of  companies  believe  that 

45   Figure 46, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
46   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 22. 
47   Figures 5 and 7, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
48   Country visit Lithuania, Confederation of Lithuanian Industrialists. 
49   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, pp. 23-24. See also 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 

12. 

50   Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 (2025). The level of perceived corruption is 
categorized  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 2020, the score was 60, while, in 2024, the score is 63. 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. 

7 

 
 
 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 33%)52. 

The first year of the implementation plan for the National Anti-Corruption Agenda was 
evaluated.  Based  on  the  agreed  methodology53,  the  first  year  of  the  implementation  plan 
2023-2025 of the National Anti-corruption Agenda for 2022-203354 was evaluated positively, 
with progress on 74% of the measures, and many initiatives implemented ahead of schedule. 
The implementation was coordinated by a working group composed of the representatives of 
the  institutions  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the  Plan  and  observers  from  civil 
society organisations.  

The  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption  offences  continues,  although 
the  rate  of  acquittals  remains  substantially  higher  than  for  other  offences.  In  view  of 
addressing the length  of investigations, including  those on corruption, a  working  group has 
prepared draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been submitted to 
the Ministry of Justice55. While the number of reports on corruption decreased (5 529 in 2024 
compared  to  6 599  in  2023),  the  number  of  pre-trial  investigations  stemming  from  them 
increased  (72  in  2024,  compared  to  44  in  2023),  suggesting  an  improvement  of  their 
quality56.  Overall,  in  2024,  the  Special  Investigation  Service  (STT)  opened  103  pre-trial 
investigations, including one case related to misuse of the EU funds under the competence of 
EPPO,  and  transferred  75  pre-trial  investigations  to  court57.  Overall,  120  persons  were 
convicted  in  2024,  of  which  7  persons  were  sentenced  to  imprisonment,  while  27  persons 
were acquitted58. Around 88% of convictions were accompanied by fines. According to the 
Prosecutor  General’s  Office,  between  1  January  and  30  November  2024,  220  offences 
(compared to  269 offences in  2023 for the same  period) of  a corruption (bribery, influence 
trading, abuse of office) were registered. Between January and June 2024, 21% persons were 
acquitted  of  corruption-related  offences  (compared  to  18.8%  in  2023)  while  the  average 
acquittal  rate  is  around  1.5%59.  In  January  2025,  seven  high-level  and  complex  corruption 
cases were being investigated60. On 24 October 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a high-level 
corruption case, upholding the convictions imposed by the Court of Appeal61.  

An  implementation  plan  was  launched  to  address  shortcomings  in  fighting  against 
foreign bribery. In view of addressing the recommendations of OECD62, in November 2024, 
an implementation plan was approved by the Minister of Justice. It outlines the steps, timing 

52   Data from Special Eurobarometer 561 (2025) and Flash Eurobarometer 557 (2025).  
53   STT (2024), No. 2-95. 
54   According  to  the  OECD  criteria,  Lithuania  scores  above  the  EU  average  on  the  coverage  of  strategic 
framework  (7  out  of  7),  on  the  adequacy  of  implementation  structures  and  reporting  (13  out  of  15)  and 
implementation  of  activities  (80  out  of  100)  but  below  the  EU  average  on  transparency  of  evaluation 
practices and use in decision making (1 out of 5). 
55   Country visit Lithuania, Public Prosecutor’s Office. 
56   Country visit Lithuania, STT.   
57   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 39. Overall, two cases of corruption were investigated in 

2024 under the control of EPPO. EPPO (2025), p. 41. 

58   Those sentences were given by the first instance court and/or higher instance court, if a different decision 
was adapted in the appeal instance. Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 39. For 2023 see also 
2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 13-14. 
59   Country visit Lithuania, Public Prosecutor’s Office.   
60   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 39. 
61   Lithuanian Supreme Court, judgment no. 2K-7-119-719/2024. 
62   OECD (2023); 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 14-15. 

8 

 
 
 
and responsible authorities that are to address the recommendations put forward by OECD63. 
A  project  ‘Prevention  and  Investigation  of  Corruption,  including  Bribery  in  International 
Business Transactions’ is being implemented with the aim to use good practices to strengthen 
capabilities to prevent bribery in international business transactions, identify and investigate 
such international criminal acts of corruption, as well as enhance awareness raising64.  

Various initiatives are being carried out  to prevent corruption and promote integrity 
in the public and private sector. The evaluation report65 of the amendments to the Law on 
Prevention  of  Corruption  was  open  for  public  consultation  and  was  finalised  on  2  May  of 
2025.  The  results  of  the  evaluation  were  publicly  presented  during  a  dedicated  event, 
highlighting the impact of the current legal framework on corruption prevention66. In relation 
to the implementation of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, in 2024, the Guidelines for 
Creating  an  Anti-Corruption  Environment  in  the  Public  Sector  were  updated,  and  several 
events  were  organised  related  to  building  an  anti-corruption  environment,  including  with 
business  associations67.  The  new  Regulation  for  the  Integrity  Academy  was  adopted  to 
establish the capacity building programme for corruption prevention specialists of the public 
sector entities68.  

in 

the 

legal 

While  non-legislative  initiatives  are  taken  to  reinforce  the  existing  rules  on  asset 
declarations,  shortcomings  remain 
framework.  Despite  previous 
announcements  and  identified  shortcomings  in  the  asset  declaration  process69,  there  are  no 
plans  to  change  the  existing  legal  framework70.  As  a  result,  it  remains  the  case  that 
declarations of private interests are not checked systematically71. Nevertheless, implementation of 
the current rules is being actively pursued by the Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC), through 
the development of the new  distance  learning  programmes  on  the  post-service  restrictions  as 
well  as  on  the  identification  and  management  of  conflicts  of  interest  and  lobbying72.  The 
COEC is cooperating with the relevant institutions through actions including meetings with 
compliance officers and recommendations in the area of integrity73.  

63   Country visit, Lithuania, STT. 
64   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 27. 
65   The  results  of  the  evaluation  are  expected  to  provide  guidance  on  potential  further  improvement  of  the 
legislative framework and the implementation mechanism. Order on the approval of the ex-post assessment 
plan  of  the  legal  regulation  of  the  law  on  the  amendment  of  the  law  on  the  prevention  of  corruption. 
Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 40. 

66  Lithuanian Government (2025b). 
67  During  the  meeting  with  the  business  associations  and  confederations,  the  Special  Investigative  Service 
(STT) and private sector exchanged views on possible  cooperation in identifying possible corruption risks 
in both the private and the public sectors (Lithuanian Government (2025b)).  

68   Order No 2-116 on the approval of the regulation of the activities of the Integrity Academy Initiative. 
69   Including lack of manual check of submitted declarations and need for clarification of the mandatory data to 

be provided in the declarations. 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 15-16.  

70   The Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. Country visit Lithuania, COEC. 
71   While  the  number  of  notifications  received  is  decreasing  (215  notifications  were  received  in  2024  in 
comparison  to  247 in  2023),  the  proportion  of  irregularities  found  remains  high  (in  2024,  28  conducted 
investigations led to confirmation of 25 infringements. COEC (2024), p. 7. 

72   In 2024, as regards lobbying, 17 notifications were received, 6 preliminary investigations were opened, 2 
investigations were carried out and one decision of COEC was challenged before a court. COEC (2024), p. 
8. 

73   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 31. 

9 

 
 
 
The new whistleblower protection framework is being implemented. The amendments to 
the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers74 aiming at adjusting the rules on processing of 
personal data, as well as establishing a prohibition against adverse effects, entered into force 
in  November  202475.  A  public  awareness  campaign  that  started  in  September  2023  and 
continued in 2024 led to positive results, according to the authorities76. In 2024, a total of 80 
whistleblower  reports  were  submitted77  and  64  of  them  were  sent  for  investigation. 
Whistleblower status was granted 40 times. In 2024, a total of 10 pre-trial investigations were 
initiated,  while  18  other  cases  resulted  in  decisions  not  to  proceed  with  launching  such 
investigations78. General trainings were organised to enhance the capacity of institutions and 
professionals  with  regard  to  whistleblowing79.  The  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  has 
developed  recommendation  guidelines  to  support  whistleblowers  and  strengthen  internal 
reporting  channels,  and  is  in  the  process  of  developing  further  recommendations  for 
prosecutors  dealing  with  cases  arising  from  whistleblower  reports,  in  view  of  ensuring 
effectiveness  and  consistency  in  handling  of  cases  across  all  stages  of  the  criminal 
investigation procedure80.  

The authorities  continue monitoring and addressing the high-risk areas of corruption, 
including  public  procurement,  through  tailor-made  initiatives.  Businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in  the EU show that 32% of companies in  Lithuania (EU average 25%) 
think  that  corruption  has  prevented  them  from  winning  a  public  tender  or  a  public 
procurement  contract  in  practice  in  the  last  three  years81.  49%  of  companies  perceive  the 
level  of  independence  of  the  public  procurement  review  bodies  (district  courts)  as  very  or 
fairly  good82.  The  Single  Market  and  Competitiveness  Scoreboard  on  access  to  public 
procurement  in  Lithuania reports 37% of single  bids  for 2023  (29% EU  average).  In  2024, 
the  STT  carried  out  nine  corruption  risk  analyses  and  more  that  20  anti-corruption 
assessments  of  legislation  in  high-risk  areas.  Since  2024,  STT  has  started  promoting 
strategic  anti-corruption  recommendations  for  each  newly  appointed  minister  and  will  be 
monitoring  their  implementation83.  The  National  Audit  Office  carries  out  regular 
assessments of corruption risks in various sectors84. In 2024, a project was launched aiming 
at  identification of corruption risks based on artificial intelligence in  cases of use of public 

74   Articles 7 and 10, Law on the protection of whistleblowers.  
75   In particular, the amendments explicitly establish a prohibition against adverse effects on a broader range of 
persons, including facilitators who support the process of reporting information on infringements obtained 
in work-related circumstances, as well as legal entities owned by, employing or otherwise associated with 
the whistleblower in work-related circumstances. Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 32. 
76   The number of the whistleblower reports increased from 53 in 2022 to 80 in 2024. Lithuanian Government 

(2025a), written input.  

77   In comparison to 76 reports received in 2023. 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 18. 
78   For the 2023 data, see 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 13-14. 
79   In  2024,  8205  persons  attended  extensive  training  sessions  (online  and  in  person).  In  addition  tailored 
sessions were also organised for the healthcare sector (2160 persons attended), municipalities (1313 persons 
attended) auditors and public procurement experts. Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 36. 

80   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 38. 
81   Flash  Eurobarometer  557  on  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the  EU  (2025).  This  is  7 

percentage points above the EU average. 
82   Figure 59, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
83   Those  recommendations  target  both  the  integrity of  the  office  as  well  as  the  main  corruption  risks  in  the 
area  of  responsibility  of  each  minister  and  bring  potential  good  practices  in  tackling  them.  Lithuanian 
Government (2025a), written input, p. 35. 

84   In  2024,  the  National  Audit  Office  analysed  the  use  of  public  procurement,  organising,  maintenance  and 
development  of  roads  of  national  significance,  and  did  financial  audits  of  various  public  sector  bodies. 
Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input. 

10 

 
 
 
and  EU  funds.  In  2024,  the  Procurement  Office  established  a  department  responsible  for 
procurement  governance85  and  presented  analytical  findings  revealing  the  reasons  for  the 
persistently  high  single  supplier  indicator86.  In  the  context  of  centralisation  of  activities 
related  to  public  procurement,  the  first  round  of  inspections  of  14  central  contracting 
authorities at municipal level was carried out87.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

increased.  Even  with 

The human resources of the regulator for audiovisual media services, Lietuvos radijo ir 
televizijos  komisija  (LRTK),  have  slightly 
the  additional 
competences88,  the  funding  of  the  LRTK  is  still  assessed  as  sufficient  and  the  human 
resources  were  slightly  increased.  From  July  2025,  LRTK  will  take  on  additional 
responsibilities  regarding  accessibility  of  media  services89.  In  view  of  these  new 
responsibilities,  the  human  resources  might  increase  even  further.  The  LRTK  continued  to 
implement the prohibition of the retransmission or internet distribution of television and radio 
channels  and  programmes  that  can  be  linked  to  Russia  or  Belarus90.  The  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor (MPM 2025) reports a continuously low risk for the independence and effectiveness 
of the audiovisual media authority91. The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics observed 
a  continued  increase  in  complaints  about  disinformation92,  while  the  media  self-regulatory 
body reported an increase of complaints in relation to the activities of influencers and the use 
of artificial intelligence in media93.  

Changes  to  the  funding  model  of  Lietuvos  nacionalinis  radijas  ir  televizija,  the  public 
service  broadcaster  (LRT)  are  under  discussion  while  actions  by  the  LRT  Council 
raised concerns. The LRT continued to operate independently. The amendment of the Law 
on  the  LRT  of  June  2024  introduced  additional  safeguards  for  greater  transparency  and 
independence  of  LRT,  including  through  new  rules  for  the  appointment  of  its  supervisory 
body, the LRT Council. LRT broadly welcomed the additional safeguards but noted since 8 
out of the 12 members are appointed by political institutions, there continues to be a risk of 
political influence on the Council94. Following criticism from stakeholders95, the Government 

85   The aim was to assess procurement governance practices, identify both good and poor practices, compile 
annual summaries based on these findings, and actively promote the importance of effective procurement 
governance. Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input.  

86   Lithuanian  Government  (2025a),  written  input,  p.  33.  The  2024-2026  Supplier  Engagement  Action  Plan 
was  also  approved  in  2024.  The  purpose  of  the  Plan  is  to  ensure  a  consistent  increase  in  the  number  of 
newly  registered  suppliers  in  the  Central  Public  Procurement  Information  System  during  each  reporting 
year of the 2024–2026 period and to enhance their interest in participating in public procurement processes. 
Lithuanian  Government  (2025a),  written  input,  p.  33.  Due  to  the delay  of  the new  e-procurement  system 
SAULE, an interim system was put in place. 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 19. 

87   The  obligation  for  the  municipalities  to  have  at  least  one  central  contracting  authority  has  been  in  force 

since 1 January 2023. Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 33. 

88   2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 20. 
89   As set out in the Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 

on the accessibility requirements for products and services. 

90   Exceptional derogations to this prohibition can be authorised by the LRTK. Country visit Lithuania, LRTK. 
91   Media Pluralism Monitor (2025), p. 20. 
92   Country visit Lithuania, Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics. 
93   Country visit Lithuania, Public Information Ethics Association. 
94   Country visit Lithuania, Lithuanian Radio and Television. 
95   Council of Europe Safety of Journalist Platform (2024) and Mapping Media Freedom (2024); The Safety of 
Journalist Platform reported the draft amendment as a serious threat to media freedom as it would risk the 
financial stability of LRT. 

11 

 
 
 
withdrew from Parliament a draft law introduced in June 2024, which aimed at changing the 
funding rules of the public service broadcaster by removing the main guarantee for minimum 
funding. A revised draft amendment submitted in July proposed changing the funding model 
by  linking  funding  adjustments  to  the  growth  of  the  GDP,  which  according  to  LRT  would 
introduce and element of unpredictability96. Additional criticism was raised by stakeholders 
in  relation  to  an internal  audit commissioned by the LRT Council on whether journalists at 
LRT adhere to the principles of political neutrality in content creation and management. The 
head of the internal auditor and the Chair of the LRT Council criticised the audit and resigned 
from  their  positions.  The  Director-General  of  LRT  also  expressed  concerns  that  the  audit 
might infringe the editorial independence of its journalists97. Parliament tasked the National 
Audit Office with a further audit, inspecting the accountability, transparency, efficiency and 
effectiveness  of  LRT  between  2021  and  2024.  The  audit  is  expected  to  be  concluded  by 
November 202598. The MPM 2025 confirms that the independence of public service media is 
at low risk99. 

The  budget  for  the  Media  Support  Fund  has  increased  significantly,  and  new 
application  rules  make  more  media  service  providers  eligible  for  funding.  The  budget 
allocated  to  Media  Support  Fund100  is  EUR  10.5  million,  EUR  4  million  over  the  initial 
budget. The 2025 revised budget application rules include lower minimum requirements for 
all funding programmes, which are expected to help emerging media to apply101. While the 
revised  rules  were  broadly  welcomed,  the  Lithuanian  Journalists’  Union  reported  that  the 
rules still favour existing and larger media service providers, making it difficult for smaller 
and  new  media  service  providers102.  The  data  from  Viešosios  informacijos  rengėjų  ir 
skleidėjų  informacinė  Sistema  (VIRSIS),  a  public  information  system,  shows  that  state 
advertising  is  not  distributed  to  a  wide  plurality  of  media  service  providers103.  While 
technical changes to VIRSIS improved access and export of information from the system, the 
current  legal  regime  still  does  not  account  for  ownership  via  proxies104.  According  to  the 
MPM 2025, media ownership transparency is at low risk. While news media concentration is 
very high, Lithuanian law does not provide for specific rules on market concentration in the 
media  sector105.  A  working  group  tasked  by  the  Ministry  of  Culture  with  adapting  the 
national legislative framework to the rules of the European Media Freedom Act is examining 
necessary changes, including measures to address media concentration106.   

The situation regarding access to documents improved, and journalists will have a right 
to  access  a  new  register  of  members  of  political  organisations.  The  guidelines  for  the 
reconciliation  of  personal  data  protection  requirements  and  freedom  of  expression  and 
information continue to be implemented by public authorities at all levels of government. The 
compliance  with  the  guidelines  improved  and  public  authorities  generally  provide  the 

96   Country visit Lithuania, Lithuanian Radio and Television. 
97   Country visit Lithuania, Lithuanian Radio and Television. See also LRT (2025).  
98   LRT (2025).  
99   Media Pluralism Monitor (2025), p. 20. 
100   Established by the Government in September 2023 to promote media pluralism.  
101   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Culture. 
102   Country visit Lithuania, Lithuanian Journalists Union. 
103   Media Pluralism Monitor (2025), p. 23. 
104   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Culture. 
105   Media Pluralism Monitor (2025), p. 16. 
106   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 43. 

12 

 
 
 
requested  information107,  with  the  exception  of  public  authorities  at  lower  levels  of 
government,  who  seem  more  reluctant  to  provide  access  to  information108.  To  further 
improve compliance with the guidelines, outreach measures were conducted to inform public 
authorities and media about their rights and responsibilities109. In November 2024, the Law 
on Political Organisations was amended, establishing the right for journalists to receive data 
concerning members of political organisations free of charge from a register. The register will 
become operational in April 2026110.  

The  implementation  of  the  Government  action  plan  for  the  protection,  safety  and 
empowerment of journalists continues, with the overall situation regarding the safety of 
journalists  remaining  favourable.  The  situation  regarding  the  safety  of  journalist  remains 
overall  good111.  Since  the  publication  of  the  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  no  new  alerts  have 
been  published  regarding  Lithuania  on  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the 
protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists112.  However,  verbal  attacks  against 
journalists  aiming  to  discredit  their  work  were  reported113.  In  this  context,  the  Mapping 
Media  Freedom  platform  issued  an  alert  in  relation  to  a  member  of  a  governing  party 
discrediting  LRT  in  relation  to  its  alleged  USAID  funding114.  The  implementation  of  the 
Government action plan for the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists continued. 
During 2024 different public authorities conducted training sessions for the judiciary and law 
enforcement on various safety-related topics115. However, the implementation of some other 
actions is delayed or no longer envisaged116. Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation 
(SLAPPs) remain a minor occurrence in the country117. The procedural safeguards of the civil 
justice  system  are  considered  sufficient  to  prevent  SLAPPs  against  journalists118.  The 
Ministry of Justice is preparing amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure to implement the 
anti-SLAPP Directive119.  

IV. 

OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

The  Ministry  of  Justice  continues  to  implement  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of 
the  Legislative  Methodological  Recommendations  and 
legislation.  Responding 
Recommendations for Codification of 2024, the Ministry of Justice is organising training for 
staff  in  ministries  who  are  responsible  for  drafting  legal  acts,  aiming  at  ensuring  a  higher 
quality  of  legislation  and  making  legislative  practice  more  consistent120.  The  Ministry  has 
also  prepared  ‘Recommendations  for  Draft  resolutions  of  the  Government’,  which  are 

to 

107   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Culture. 
108   Country visit Lithuania, Lithuanian Journalists Union and The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics. 
109   Country visit Lithuania, The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics. 
110   The  register  was  originally  foreseen  to  be  operational  in  July  2025;  Country  visit  Lithuania,  Ministry  of 

Culture. 

111   2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 22-23. 
112   Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2025). 
113   Delfi (2025). 
114   Mapping Media Freedom (2025).  
115   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 44. 
116   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Culture. 
117   Country visit Lithuania, Internet Media Association, Lithuanian Radio and Television and The Office of the 

Inspector of Journalist Ethics. 

118   Country visit Lithuania, The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics. 
119   ‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’ Directive; Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 

44. 

120   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, pp. 45-46.  

13 

 
 
 
intended  to  bring  a  more  uniform  drafting  of  Government  resolutions  in  response  to  draft 
legal acts of Parliament. In the context of the legislative process, the Ministry also conducts a 
systematic  assessment  of  compliance  of  the  drafts  with  the  applicable  legislative  principles 
and  may  propose  changes121.  The  assessment  of  regulatory  burden  for  businesses  is 
underway, and a compliance cost reduction goal has been established122. 

Over half of the companies surveyed in Lithuania express confidence in the effectiveness 
investment protection.  59% of companies are very or fairly confident that investments are 
protected  by  law  and  courts123.  Stakeholders  consider  that  the  short  timeframes  for  public 
consultations, as well as the fact that these only take place in the final phase of the reforms, 
negatively affect the protection of investors124. As regards authorities relevant for economic 
operators, 41% of companies perceive the level of independence of the national competition 
authority (the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania) as very or fairly good125. A 
number of judicial mechanisms are in place at the level of the Supreme Administrative Court 
to  ensure  the  implementation  of  administrative  court  judgments,  including  disciplinary 
actions  against  the  responsible  officials,  the  possibility  to  substitute  the  annulled 
administrative act, and to award direct and consequential damages and compensation126.  

On  1  January  2025,  Lithuania  had  20  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  a  decrease  of  2  compared  to  the  previous 
year127. At that time, Lithuania’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that had 
been implemented was at 68% (compared to 66% in 2024; 32% remained pending), and the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 4 years and 7 months 
(compared  to  3  years  and  8  months  in  2024)128.  The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending 
implementation for almost 17 years, concerns the lack of legislation governing the conditions 
and  procedures  relating  to  gender  reassignment129.  As  regards  the  respect  of  payment 
deadlines,  on  31  December  2024  there  were  no  cases  awaiting  confirmation  of  payments 
(same  as  in  2023)130.  On  16  June  2025,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending 
implementation  had  decreased  to  18131.  Following  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights 
decision in Macatė v Lithuania and subsequent Government application to the Constitutional 
Court,  this  Court  declared  the  contested  provision  of  the  Law  on  the  Protection  of  Minors 
incompatible with the Constitution132.  

121   Lithuanian Government (2025b), written input, p. 9. 
122   Lithuanian Government (2025b), written input, p. 10. 
123   Figure 54, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 27% and 21% of the surveyed investors respectively perceive the 
frequent  changes  in  legislation  or  concerns  about  the  quality  of  the  law-making  process,  and  the  quality, 
efficiency  or  independence  of  justice,  respectively,  as  a  reason  for  the  lack  of  confidence  in  investment 
protection. 

124   Country visit Lithuania, Confederation of Lithuanian Industrialists. 
125   Figure 60, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
126   Figure 49, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. The data presented reflects exclusively the mechanisms in place at 
the level of the highest administrative jurisdictions; the same or other mechanisms may be in place at lower 
instance administrative courts. 

127   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe.   
128   All figures calculated by the European Implementation Network (EIN) and based  on the number of cases 
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2025. EIN (2025), written input, p.6. 

129   Judgment of the ECtHR, 27527/03, L. v Lithuania, pending implementation since 2008.  
130   Council of Europe (2025), p. 157.   
131   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
132   Constitutional  Court  of  Lithuania,  No  KT101-N15/2024.  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Lithuania,  p.  25. 

ECtHR, Macatė v Lithuania, case no. 61435/19. 

14 

 
 
 
The resources allocated to the Parliamentary Ombudspersons further increased, in line 
with  the  extension  of  its  mandate.  In  November  2024,  the  mandate  of  the  Seimas 
Ombudspersons  was  extended  to  include  the  role  of  ‘National  rapporteur  on  trafficking  in 
human beings’, and additional budget was allocated in this regard133. While concerns remain 
regarding  the  adequacy  of  the  resources  to  fulfil  the  broad  mandate  of  the  institution,  it  is 
acknowledged  that  the  situation  is  improving134.  In  May  2024,  the  Office  of  the 
Parliamentary  Ombudspersons  was  re-accredited  with  ‘A’  status135.  While  the  accreditation 
committee recommended to ensure the formalisation of a clear, transparent, and participatory 
selection and appointment process of Ombudspersons, and to provide for an independent and 
objective dismissal process, the Government is not envisaging changes136. It is reported that 
98%  of  the  recommendations  made  in  2024  by  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons  were 
implemented or taken into account, and the institution can exercise its mandate without any 
threats, 
the 
Ombudspersons’  access  to  policy makers and the involvement in the legislative process, as 
there is no systematic notification of draft laws by the parliamentary committees138. 

intimidation  or  harassment137.  However,  challenges  remain  regarding 

Stakeholders continue to express concerns regarding the effective participation of civil 
society  in  decision-making  processes,  in  particular  at  local  level.  While  the  civic  space 
continues  to  be  considered  open139,  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  continue  to  report 
some  challenges  regarding  their  participation  in  decision  making,  particularly  the  short  and 
unclear consultation timelines, and the lack of clear feedback mechanisms, especially at local 
level140.  Stakeholders  have  called  for  minimum  consultation  periods  to  be  established141. 
Non-governmental organisations’ (NGOs) right of access to information  from the Centre of 
Registers  remains  subject  to  evidence  of  direct  interest  and  to  the  payment  of  a  fee,  which 
further  limits  their  capacity  to  participate  in  the  decision-making  process142.  The  National 
NGO fund continues to be an important source of financing for NGOs, and feedback on its 
functioning  is  positive.  However,  challenges  remain  regarding  the  limited  availability  of 
funds and the bureaucratic hurdles to access them143. NGOs have welcomed amendments to 
the Law on Personal Income Tax that came into force and provide that taxpayers can allocate 
a  certain  percentage  of  their  income  tax  to  non-profit  organisations.  However,  these  NGOs 
have also expressed concerns about the obligation to have an ‘NGO marker’ to be eligible for 

133   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 49; ENNHRI (2025), p. 4. 
134   ENNHRI (2025), pp. 4 and 5. 2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 26; Country visit Lithuania, Office of 
the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons.  The  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report  considered  that  Lithuania  had  made 
significant  progress  concerning  the  2023  recommendation  on  the  resources  at  the  disposal  of  the 
Ombudspersons (2024 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 2). 

135   Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) (2024).  
136   GANHRI (2024); ENNHRI (2025), p. 1. 
137   Lithuanian Government (2025a), written input, p. 49; ENNHRI (2025), p. 5. 
138   ENNHRI (2025), p. 4. 
139   Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

140   According to a study of the Office of the Seimas Ombudspersons, municipalities do not always consult with 
the public and non-governmental organisations when making important decisions (Lithuanian Government 
(2025a), written input, p. 46). Country visit Lithuania, Human Rights Monitoring Institute, NGO Coalition.  
141   Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2025), pp. 638-639. Country visit Lithuania, Confederation of Lithuanian 

Industrialists. 

142   2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Lithuania,  p.  27.  Country visit  Lithuania,  Human  Rights  Monitoring  Institute, 

NGO Coalition. 

143   For instance, NGOs criticise  that  the  regulation of public procurement is not clear,  as some agencies that 
provide  funding  for  NGOs  automatically  apply  public  procurement  rules  (Country  visit  Lithuania,  NGO 
Coalition). 

15 

 
 
 
these allocations144, as they fear this may open the door to abuses by for-profit organisations. 
Concerns have also emerged about incidents of negative rhetoric targeting certain NGOs and 
calls  for  disclosure  of  data  on  foreign  funding,  which  were  subsequently  accompanied  by 
social media posts revealing the identity of some of the beneficiaries. 

144   Country  visit  Lithuania,  Human  Rights  Monitoring  Institute,  NGO  Coalition.  Civil  Liberties  Union  for 
Europe (2025), p. 642. See also 2023 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 23 (Law on Personal Income Tax). 

16 

 
 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2025 Rule of Law report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2025-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2025),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2025,  Country 
report for Lithuania. 

Civicus 
https://monitor.civicus.org/country/lithuania/. 

Monitor 

(2025), 

tracking 

civic 

space 

– 

Lithuania, 

Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2025), Contribution from Civil Liberties Union for Europe for the 
2025 Rule of Law Report. 

COEC (2025), Annual Report 2025. 

Constitutional Court of Lithuania, judgment of 18 December 2024, No KT101-N15/2024. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) (2025), Contribution from the Council of Bars 
and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) (2023), CCBE Recommendations on legal aid. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000),  Recommendation  No.  R(2000)21  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  freedom  of  exercise  of  the  profession  of 
lawyer. 

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 (2021), Guidelines on the efficiency and the effectiveness 
of legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law, CM(2021)36. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2025),  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  and 
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, 18th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers, 
https://rm.coe.int/gbr-2001-18e-rapport-annuel-2024/1680b4d77d. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Lithuania (2025), https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709544. 

Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2002), Opinion no. 3 of the Consultative Council 
of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 
on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible 
behaviour and impartiality. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  25  February  2025,  XL  and Others  v  Sąd 
Rejonowy  w  Białymstoku  and  Lietuvos  Respublika,  joined  cases  C-146/23  and  C-374/23, 
ECLI:EU:C:2025:109. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 20 April 2021,  Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, 
C-896/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311. 

European  Association  of  Judges  (EAJ)  (2025),  Contribution  from  EAJ  for  the  2025  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

17 

 
 
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2025), Mapping Media Freedom, Lithuania country 
profile, https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/. 

European Commission (2025), 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2025), Flash Eurobarometer 557 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption 
in the EU. 

European Commission (2025), Special Eurobarometer 561 on Corruption. 

European Commission (2024), 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2024), 2024 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania. 

European Commission (2023), 2023 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 16 June 2022, Zurek v. Poland, case no. 39650/18. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  23  January  2023,  Macatė  v  Lithuania,  case  no. 
61435/19. 

European Implementation Network (EIN) (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2025), Contribution from the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2025 Rule of Law Report.  

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2025), Contribution from the 
European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2025), Annual Report 2024. 

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), Sub-Committee on Accreditation 
(SCA)  (2024),  Report  and  Recommendations  of the Session  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation 
(SCA), Online, 26-28 March 2024 Geneva, 29 April-3 May 2024. 

Lithuanian Government (2025a), Input from Lithuania for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Lithuanian Government (2025b), Additional written contribution for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

OECD  (2023),  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention,  Phase  3  Report:  Lithuania 
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/implementing-the-oecd-anti-bribery-convention-phase-3-report-
lithuania_640d636a-en.html. 

Supreme Court of Lithuania, decision of 24 October 2024, MG Baltic case, No. 2K-7-119-719/2024. 

Special Investigation Service (2025), 2024 Activity Report. 

Special Investigation Service (2024), Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2023/2024. 

Special Investigation Service (2024),  Order on the adoption of the methodology for monitoring and 
evaluating progress in the implementation of the National Agenda for the Prevention of Corruption 
for 2022-2033, . 

Transparency International (2025), Corruption Perceptions Index 2024. 

18 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2025 with: 

•  Bar Association  
•  COEC  
•  Confederation of Lithuanian Industrialists  
•  Constitutional Court  
•  Human Rights Monitoring Institute 
•  Judicial Council  
•  Lithuanian Journalists Union  
•  Lithuanian Radio and Television  
•  Media Authority – Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania  
•  Ministry of Culture  
•  Ministry of Foreign Affairs  
•  Ministry of Justice  
•  National Courts Administration  
•  National NGO Coalition  
•  Office of the President of the Republic 
•  Office of the Prosecutor General  
•  Office of the Seimas Ombudspersons  
•  Online Media Association 
•  Public Information Ethics Association  
•  Public Procurement Service  
•  Special Investigation Service  
•  Supreme Court  
•  Transparency International Lithuania 

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

•  Amnesty International  
•  Araminta  
•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe   
•  Civil Society Europe   
•  European Civic Forum   
•  European Partnership for Democracy  
•  European Youth Forum,  
• 
• 
•  JEF Europe  
•  Philea – Philanthropy Europe Association.  
•  Transparency International 

International Commission of Jurists   
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)  

19