COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2026-07-17
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  Brussels, 17.7.2026  SWD(2026) 915 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report                        The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2026) 900 final} - {SWD(2026) 901 final} - {SWD(2026) 902 final} - {SWD(2026) 903 final} - {SWD(2026) 904 final} - {SWD(2026) 905 final} - {SWD(2026) 906 final} - {SWD(2026) 907 final} - {SWD(2026) 908 final} - {SWD(2026) 909 final} - {SWD(2026) 910 final} - {SWD(2026) 911 final} - {SWD(2026) 912 final} - {SWD(2026) 913 final} - {SWD(2026) 914 final} - {SWD(2026) 916 final} - {SWD(2026) 917 final} - {SWD(2026) 918 final} - {SWD(2026) 919 final} - {SWD(2026) 920 final} - {SWD(2026) 921 final} - {SWD(2026) 922 final} - {SWD(2026) 923 final} - {SWD(2026) 924 final} - {SWD(2026) 925 final} - {SWD(2026) 926 final} - {SWD(2026) 927 final} - {SWD(2026) 928 final} - {SWD(2026) 929 final} - {SWD(2026) 930 final} - {SWD(2026) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Efforts are underway to improve the transparency of the system of appointments to judicial 
positions,  as  the  working  group  tasked  with  proposing  possible  changes  to  the  system  has 
presented  its  conclusions  and  proposed  amendments  are  being  prepared.  Changes  to  the 
requirements for appointing Constitutional Court judges are under discussion in Parliament. 
Lawyers continue to raise concerns regarding respect for lawyer-client confidentiality while 
legislative  changes  to  strengthen  the  safeguards  on  disciplinary  proceedings  of  lawyers  are 
under  discussion.  The  human  and  financial  resources  allocated  to  the  justice  system  are 
considered  insufficient  by  the  judiciary,  including  in  light  of  the  preliminary  ruling  of  the 
Court  of  Justice  on  the  remuneration  of  judges  in  Lithuania.  Discussions  on  the  level  of 
remuneration of legal aid providers were suspended in 2026 and the envisaged new features 
of the Legal Aid Information System  to reduce the administrative burden for legal aid providers 
are planned for this year. The justice system continues to perform efficiently, and the level of 
digitalisation remains high, while further efforts are being made to promote the automation of 
tasks and improve interoperability.  

The  second  implementation  plan  2026-2029  for  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Agenda  was 
approved  by  the  Government  in  April  2026.  The  authorities  continue  to  address  corruption 
cases  efficiently  while  the  acquittal  rate  decreased.  The  offence  of  abuse  of  office  was 
amended. Significant efforts continue to be carried out in view of addressing shortcomings in 
the fight against foreign bribery. While the current framework remains unchanged, efforts are 
being  made  in  view  of  the  implementation  of  the  rules  on  declarations  of  private  interests. 
The  current  lobbying  framework  is  being  used  with  success,  and  a  working  group  was 
established to reflect on further improvement of the current rules. The number of reports on 
whistleblowing  is  on  the  rise,  while  numerous  activities  implementing the  current  rules  are 
ongoing. Efforts continue in monitoring and addressing the high-risk areas of corruption.  

The  regulator  for  audiovisual  media  services  (LRTK)  operates  independently.  Legislative 
initiatives  concerning  the  governance  and  leadership  of  the  public  broadcaster  Lithuanian 
Radio  and  Television  (LRT)  raised  concerns  about  risks  to  its  independence  and  generated 
public protests. Changes to the funding model of LRT will be assessed by the Constitutional 
Court.  The  budget  for  the  Media  Support  Fund  has  initially  decreased  slightly,  while  the 
Government  has  allocated  extra  resources  to  keep  the  previous  level  of  financing.  The 
situation regarding access to documents remains stable and the scope of information provided 
in  public  databases  is  expanding.  Amendments  to  the  legislation  to  combat  SLAPPs  were 
adopted in December 2025 and the possibility of state-guaranteed legal aid was maintained.  

The increasing use of fast-track procedures has raised concerns about the possibility of public 
participation in key legislative procedures,  with stakeholders, including businesses, warning 
about the inclusiveness of the legislative procedure. Changes to the law on the Parliamentary 
Ombudspersons    increased  the  number  of  Ombudspersons  to  three,  and  amendments  to  the 
appointment  procedure  of  Ombudspersons  were  rejected  in  Parliament.  The  civic  space 
remains  open,  and  efforts  are  made  to  improve  effective  civil  society  participation  in 
decision-making,  while  legislative  changes  to  the  Law  on  Charity  and  Sponsorship  raise 
concerns of civil society organisations regarding their access to financing. 

1 

 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall,  based  on  the  recommendations  in  the  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  and  considering 
other developments that took place in the period of reference, the Commission concludes the 
following:  

•  Limited  progress  has  been  made  to  advance  the  reform  of  the  legal  aid  systems,  as 
discussions  on  the  level  of  remuneration  of  legal  aid  providers  were  suspended  and  the 
envisaged changes to reduce the administrative burden for legal aid providers are planned 
to be launched in 2026. Therefore, 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.  
•  Some further progress has been made in stepping up efforts to improve the transparency 
of the system of appointments to judicial positions, notably to the Supreme Court, as the 
working  group  tasked  with  proposing  possible  changes  to  the  system  has  presented  its 
conclusions and proposed amendments are being prepared. Therefore, it is recommended 
to Lithuania to step up efforts to improve the transparency of the system of appointments 
to judicial positions taking into account European standards on judicial appointments, in 
particular by following up on the proposals put forward by the working group created for 
this purpose.  

2 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1  

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Lithuania  is  now  high  among  the 
general  public  and  companies.  Overall,  66%  of  the  general  population  and  70%  of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  20262.  Among  the  general  public,  this  figure  has  significantly  increased  in  comparison 
with  2025  (59%),  as  well  as  in  comparison  with  2022  (57%).  The  perceived  judicial 
independence among companies has significantly increased in comparison with 2025 (58%) 
as well as in comparison with 2022 (61%).  

Some  further  progress  has  been  made  on  the  recommendation  to  improve  the 
transparency of the system of appointments to judicial positions, as the working group 
tasked  with  proposing  possible  changes  to  the  system  has  presented  its  conclusions3. 
Judicial appointments have been made without delays, and the practice of the Office of the 
President of the Republic to present the reasons for the appointment decisions orally during 
the meetings of the Judicial Council continues to be ensured4. The Judicial Council’s working 
group  tasked  with  proposing  concrete  changes  to  the  selection  process  to  improve  its 
transparency and efficiency5, presented its conclusions and proposals to the Judicial Council 
in  March  2026.  In  particular,  the  working  group  considered  that  the  personal  competences 
required  for  appointment  to  judicial  functions  should  be  revised,  and  changes  to  the 
evaluation  system  (adjustments  to  the  composition  of  selection  points  and  their  calculation 
methodology)  as  well  as  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts  regarding  the  inclusion  of 
candidates  in  the  general  ranking  lists  were  also  proposed.  The  proposals  of  the  working 
group  were  forwarded  to  the  specialised  committees  of  the  Judicial  Council  for  further 
evaluation,  and  decisions  on  the  implementation  of  these  changes  are  under  consideration. 
The working group has also been called to assess possible measures to ensure the execution 
of  the  ruling  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  whereby  the  Court  held  that  the 
absence of judicial review of the decision of the President of the Republic not to reappoint a 
judge violates the  right  of access to  a  court, as  guaranteed by the European Convention on 
Human Rights6. In this regard, the working group considered that no legislative amendments 

1  An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here.  
2   Figures 48 and 50, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard and Figures 51 and 53, 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 2025 Rule of Law Report recommended Lithuania to: ‘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’.  Some  further  progress  was  previously  assessed  on  this 
recommendation in 2025, 2024 and 2023. 

4   Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council; Office of the President of the Republic. 
5   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 3. 
6   ECtHR, Misiūnas v. Lithuania, case no. 38686/22. In the case of a former judge seeking reappointment to a 
judicial  post  and  whose  reappointment  was  refused  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  without  a  reasoned 
opinion, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to provide an effective legal remedy capable of 
addressing  the  substance  of  the  applicant’s  complaint,  despite  him  having  a  legitimate  and  reasonable 
expectation  that  his  application  for  re-entry  into  the  judicial  profession  would  be  given  proper 
consideration. There had been no exceptional or compelling reasons to justify the lack of judicial review of 
the  President’s  decision.  See  Council  of  Europe  –  Lithuania,  written  input,  p.  1.  Following  the  ECtHR’s 
decision,  on 16  March 2026, the  Lithuanian  Supreme  Court  granted  the  applicant’s  request  to  reopen  the 
civil case and returned it to the Vilnius District Court to reconsider the acceptance of the lawsuit.  

3 

 
 
are required7. In view of  the above, some further  progress  has been made  in  improving the 
transparency of the system of judicial appointments. 

Changes  to  the  requirements  for  appointing  Constitutional  Court  judges  are  under 
discussion  in  Parliament,  following  a  ruling  of  the  Constitutional  Court.  Following  the 
Parliament’s  decision  to  appoint  three  new  judges  to  the  Constitutional  Court8,  a  group  of 
members of Parliament appealed before the Constitutional Court the decision concerning one 
of the appointees9. The Constitutional Court declared that the appointee in question did not 
meet the constitutional requirements for exercising the functions10. In light of the discussions 
triggered  by  this  case,  members  of  Parliament  presented  in  September  2025  draft 
amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court, aimed at clarifying in particular the level 
of professional experience in the legal field required for the function of Constitutional Court 
judge. These amendments are still pending before Parliament11. Another draft law concerning 
the grounds for self-disqualification and disqualification of Constitutional Court judges also 
remains pending before Parliament12. 

Lawyers  continue  to  raise  concerns  regarding  respect  for  lawyer-client  confidentiality 
and legislative changes to strengthen safeguards in disciplinary proceedings of lawyers 
are  under  discussion.  In  light  of  previously  expressed  concerns  regarding  the  role  of  the 
Minister of Justice in disciplinary proceedings of lawyers13, the Lithuanian Bar Association 
submitted  in  December  2025  draft  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  Bar14.  The  draft  was 
reviewed and discussed by the Ministry of Justice and the Lithuanian Bar Association on 15 
April 2026. It was agreed that the Lithuanian Bar Association would submit the revised draft 
to  the  Ministry  of  Justice15.  Lawyers  also  continue  to  raise  concerns  about  practices  they 
consider  as  amounting  to  violations  of  professional  secrecy,  such  as  video  recordings  of 
interactions with clients in detention facilities, digital copies of lawyers’ devices seized in the 
course  of  criminal  proceedings,  and  questioning  lawyers  about  criminal  acts  they  became 
aware of in the course of their professional practice16. According to European standards, all 

7   The execution of the case is under the supervision of the Committee of Minister of the Council of Europe, 

which has not assessed it yet. 

8   The appointment followed the procedure as revised in June 2025 (see 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, 

p. 3, fn. 19). 

9   Country visit Lithuania, Constitutional Court. 
10   The  Court  held  that  Parliament  failed  to  comply  with  the  requirement,  set  forth  in  Article  103(3)  of  the 
Constitution, to appoint to the office of a justice of the Constitutional Court only such a person who has the 
professional experience necessary for these duties (Constitutional Court of Lithuania, ruling of 15 January 
2026).  The  ruling  is  directly  applicable,  implying  the  absolute  nullity  of  the  appointment  decision.  The 
procedure for the appointment of a judge to the remaining vacant post was finalised on 17 March 2026, and 
all three new judges were sworn in on 19 March 2026. 

11   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 5. 
12   Country visit Lithuania, Constitutional Court. See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 4. 
13   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 5. See also figure 58, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
14   The amendments discussed would remove the Minister’s authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and 
appoint members of the Disciplinary Court, vesting these powers exclusively in the Bar Association. At the 
same time, in order to safeguard the rights of complainants, it was also proposed to introduce a clear right 
of appeal against decisions of the Bar Association. 

15  Consideration is also being given to incorporating these amendments into the draft law being prepared for 
the  ratification  and  implementation  of  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Profession of Lawyer. 

16   Lithuanian Bar Association, written input, p. 11. See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 4-5. 

4 

 
 
necessary measures should be taken to ensure the respect of the confidentiality of the lawyer-
client relationship17.  

Quality  

The  human  and  financial  resources  allocated  to  the  justice  system  are  still  considered 
insufficient by the judiciary, including in light of the preliminary ruling of the Court of 
Justice regarding the remuneration of judges in Lithuania. Despite the progress brought 
about  by  the  January  2025  reform  of  remuneration  systems  for  judicial  and  prosecutorial 
staff, stakeholders continue to express concerns as to the competitiveness of salaries18, which 
they perceive  as  the cause for the high  number  of vacant  posts in  the justice system19. The 
Minister of Justice has set up a working group, focusing on improving the efficiency of the 
justice system, and on the developing measures to facilitate the formation of a judicial team 
more  effectively,  the  composition  of  this  working  group  was  renewed  in  February  2026  to 
include  the  representatives  of  the  Ministry  of  Finance.  The  financing  needs  of  the  judicial 
community  were  discussed  in  detail  in  March  2026.  Further  discussions  on  this  issue  are 
taking  place  in  the  format  of  the  budget  negotiations.  As  regards  judges’  salaries,  new 
amendments to the system of indexation came into force in January 202620. In line with the 
newly introduced rules, the previously established salary fund recalculation mechanism was 
abolished, and the provisions limiting the reduction of recalculated salaries were revoked21. 
The  judiciary  has  raised  concerns  that  these  amendments  will  make  judges’  salaries 
increasingly less competitive, impacting on the attractiveness of the profession22. Following a 
request for a preliminary ruling from a Lithuanian court, the Court of Justice of the European 
Union  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 salary23. While the budget allocated to the justice system 
has  been  increasing  annually,  these  increases  have  largely  stemmed  from  horizontal  policy 
decisions rather than from an assessment of the actual needs of the judicial system, and  the 
budget for the justice system remains among the lowest in the EU24. Also, despite recurring 
calls  for  the  modernisation  and  renewal  of  court  buildings,  including  in  light  of  security 
concerns, no measures are envisaged in this regard25. 

Limited progress  was  made  on  the  recommendation  regarding  the  reform  of  the  legal 
aid  system,  as  discussions  on  the  level  of  remuneration  of  legal  aid  providers  were 

17   Council of Europe (2025), para. 3(b); Council of Europe (2000), para. 6.  
18   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 9; p. 17. 
19   As of 31 December 2025, 8.4% of the judges’ posts and 15.2% of court staff posts remained vacant; at the 
level of the Supreme Court, 16 out of 104 of the non-judicial posts were vacant (Country visit Lithuania, 
Judicial Council). No additional funding was received to increase the salaries of prosecution staff in 2025, 
despite the legislative changes (Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 17). 

20   Law No. XV-640 of 9 December 2025. 
21   Under  the  legal  framework  in  force  until  the  end  of  2025,  the  indexation  of  the  salary  fund  was  to  be 
applied according to the mechanism set out in the law, linked to economic indicators, for the first time when 
preparing  the  2026  State  Budget.  According  to  the  previous  system,  an  estimated  2.5%  increase  was 
expected  for  2026,  corresponding  to  the  projected  growth  of  GDP  (3.3%),  average  wages  (7.3%),  and 
inflation (approximately 3%). Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council. ENCJ (2026), written input, pp. 65-
66. Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council. 

22   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 16; Country visit Lithuania, Judicial Council.  
23   Judgment of the CJEU of 25 February 2025, joined cases C‑146/23 and 374/23. See also 2025 Rule of Law 

Report, Lithuania, p. 5. 

24   In  2026,  the  budget  allocated  to  courts  increased  from  EUR  122,595  million  to  EUR  123,959  million 
(Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 17). See figures 33 and 34, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

25   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 10. Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Justice. 

5 

 
 
suspended in 2026, and the envisaged new features of the Legal Aid Information System 
to reduce the administrative burden are planned to be launched still this year26. Lawyers 
who completed special training continue to benefit from higher remuneration when providing 
legal aid in specific areas27, and additional funds have been allocated to provide training to 
more  lawyers28.  Following  the  assessment  of  the  pilot  project  which  ran  from  March  until 
May 2025 to ensure an even workload distribution among legal aid providers, it was agreed 
that there is currently no need to adopt the proposed legal act, as the existing case allocation 
method is effective, while the situation will continue to be monitored29. Also, new features of 
the Legal Aid Information System to reduce the administrative burden for legal aid providers 
are  planned  to  be  launched  in  202630.  Despite  proposals  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the 
remuneration of legal aid providers has not changed in 2026, and remains for defence lawyers 
in criminal cases among the lowest in the EU31. However, the Ministry of Justice has further 
proposed to increase the hourly base rate for lawyers providing legal aid in 2028 and 2029, 
while  a  final  decision  depends  on  the  available  financial  resources32.  The  Constitutional 
Court  has  recently  declared  unconstitutional  a  provision  of  the  Law  on  State  Guaranteed 
Legal Aid pertaining to secondary legal aid33. The Bar Association has presented proposals to 
address  persisting  concerns  regarding  the  strict  limitations  of  the  number  of  hours  payable 
under the legal aid system, as well as regarding the impact of the value-added tax on legal aid 
providers’  remuneration34.  According  to  European  standards,  an  appropriate  level  of 
remuneration needs to be ensured for legal aid providers35. Overall, limited progress has been 
made in implementing this recommendation. 

The level of digitalisation remains high, and further efforts are being made, including to 
promote  automation  of  tasks  and  improve  interoperability.  Electronic  communication 
tools continue to be widely available, both for courts and the prosecution service. As a new 
information  system  for  prosecution  is  being  developed,  efforts  are  underway  to  ensure 
interoperability  with  the  courts’  information  system,  in  particular  regarding  data  and 
documents exchange36. While a significant number of digital solutions to initiate and follow 
proceedings in civil, commercial, and administrative cases are in place, these are  noticeably 
less  developed  for  criminal  cases.  In  particular,  confidential  communication  between 

26   The 2025 Rule of Law Report recommended 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’. Some further progress  was previously assessed on this recommendation 
in 2025, 2024, and 2023. 

27   EUR  50  per  hour  (in  comparison  to  the  standard  rate  of  EUR  25  per  hour).  See  also  2024  Rule  of  Law 

Report, Lithuania, p. 10. 

28   Lithuanian  Government  (2026),  written  input,  p.  3.  Cases  have  been  reported  of  restrictions  to  the 
application of the higher tariff. Following an intervention by the Bar, the Ministry of Justice acknowledged 
the error and agreed to compensate for unpaid fees (Lithuanian Bar Association, written input, p. 12). 

29   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 6. 
30   In  2026,  development  of  the  Legal  Aid  Information  System  (TEISIS)  is  planned  in  order  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden for lawyers providing state-guaranteed legal aid (for example, improvements of the 
functionality for submitting remuneration requests). 

31   Figure 24, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
32  The current rate is EUR 25 per hour. It is proposed to increase it to EUR 30 in 2028 and to EUR 35 in 2029. 
The  proposals  will  be  discussed  during  the  budget  negotiations  with  representatives  of  the  Ministry  of 
Finance and the Government. 

33   The  Constitutional  Court’s  ruling  of  26  November  2025  requires  amendments  to  the  Law  on  State 
Guaranteed  Legal  Aid,  to  ensure  full  compliance  with  the  constitutional  right  of  access  to  a  court 
(Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 14). 

34   Lithuanian Bar Association, written input, p. 12. 
35   Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2021), para. 22. See also CCBE (2023), point 3. 
36   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 20. 

6 

 
 
defendants  and  their  lawyers  during  remote  hearings  remains  impossible,  and  electronic 
access  to  cases  remains  limited,  both  for  victims  and  defendants37.  A  new  project  for  the 
automation of tasks in court proceedings is being implemented, which is expected to reduce 
the duration of judicial proceedings38. 

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  continues  to  perform  efficiently,  and  discussions  are  ongoing  to 
improve  efficiency  in  administrative  cases.  In  2024,  the  disposition  time  in  first  instance 
civil and commercial cases (127 days), as well as in administrative cases (140 days) remained 
among  the  lowest  in  the  EU,  despite  significant  increases  in  administrative  cases39.  The 
number of pending non-criminal first instance cases remained stable and comparatively low. 
However, regarding administrative cases, courts received more cases than they were able to 
resolve,  leading  to  a  negative  rate  of  case  resolution.  While  stakeholders  do  not  report 
concerns  regarding  the  absence  of  commercial  courts,  there  are  calls  for  stronger 
specialisation  of  judges  in  commercial  matters40.  With  the  aim  of  improving  efficiency  in 
administrative cases, the Ministry of Justice has proposed legislative changes extending the 
categories  of  cases  subject  to  mandatory  pre-trial  proceedings,  as  well  as  extending  the 
deadline  to  appeal  administrative  decisions  before  court41.  The  judiciary  was  not  formally 
involved  in  the  preparation  of  these  proposals42.  However,  the  amendments  proposed  were 
officially submitted to the Judicial Council and administrative courts for consideration under 
the ordinary legislative procedure. After the consultation process, the modified amendments 
were submitted to the Government in May 2026. The judiciary is also preparing proposals to 
improve  efficiency,  namely  concerning  the  removal  of  non-judicial  functions  attributed  to 
courts43. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector is relatively low. In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index 
by Transparency International, Lithuania scores 65/100 and ranks 12th in the European Union 
and 28th globally44. This perception has improved over the past five years45. The 2026 Special 
Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 86% of respondents consider corruption widespread 
in  their  country  (EU  average  71%)  and  25%  of  respondents  feel  personally  affected  by 
corruption in their daily lives (EU average 30%). As regards businesses, 59% of companies 

37   Figures 41 and 46 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
38   The project is financed by the Commission’s Technical Support Instrument (TSI). It focuses on improving 
three  key  areas:  automated  assistance  in  completing  templates  to  support  routine  tasks  and  reduce  the 
volume of manual work and the number of errors; automated proposals for hearing schedules, automatically 
suggesting  hearing  times  and  optimizing  time  management;  automated  management  of  case-related 
processes.  

39   Figures  5  and  7,  2026  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  In  first  instance  administrative  cases,  the  disposition  time 

increased from 64 days in 2023 to 140 days in 2024. 

40   Country visit Lithuania, Investors’ Forum. 
41   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 25. 
42   Country visit Lithuania, National Courts Administration. 
43   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, pp. 26-27. ENCJ (2026), written input, pp. 32-33. 
44   The level of perceived corruption is categorized as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (between 79-60), 

relatively high (between 59-50), high (below 50). 

45   In 2021 the score was 61, while, in 2025, the score is 65. 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 

 
 
consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 65%) and 23% consider that corruption is 
a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%).  Furthermore,  49%  of  respondents  find 
that  there  are  enough  successful  prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU 
average 38%), while 42% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing 
a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%)46. 

The  second  implementation  plan  2026-2029  for  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Agenda 
was approved by the Government in April 2026. According to the monitoring and progress 
evaluation  report  issued  by  the  Special  Investigation  Service  (STT)  on  the  National  Anti-
Corruption Agenda 2022-203347, approximately 90% of the planned activities included in the 
first  implementation  plan  2023–2025  were  implemented.  48.  The  second  implementation 
plan49 focuses on, among  others, whistleblowing, raising awareness, as  well  high-risk areas 
for corruption50. 

The  authorities  continue  to  address  corruption  cases  efficiently  and  the  acquittal  rate 
decreased. In view of addressing the length of investigations, including those on corruption, 
the draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure were considered by the Parliament 
and sent back to the Ministry of Justice51. In 2025, the STT opened 98 pre-trial investigations 
and  transferred  51  pre-trial  investigations  to  court52.  Overall,  three  high  level  and  complex 
corruption  cases  were  investigated  by  the  STT,  and  five  cases  of  corruption  falling  were 
initiated by the EPPO53. Ninety persons were convicted in the first instance in 2025 while 20 
persons  were  acquitted54.  In  terms  of  final  court  judgments  in  corruption  cases,  there  were 
156  convictions  for  both  natural  and  legal  persons,  against  17  acquittals55.  In  2025,  the 
Prosecutor  General’s  Office  registered  38%  less  cases  than  in  2024.  In  proceedings 
concerning  corruption  by  local  government  politicians  initiated  in  2023,  the  courts  had 
convicted 31 politicians, while six were acquitted or had their cases dismissed56.  

The  offence  of  abuse  of  office  was  amended,  reducing  the  maximum  term  of 
imprisonment and reclassifying the offence as a medium-gravity crime. At the initiative 
of Members of Parliament, which sparked a public debate57, Parliament adopted amendments 

46   Data from Special Eurobarometer 573 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026).  
47   Monitoring and evaluation report of the National Anti-Corruption Agenda 2022-2033 – implementation in 

2024, STT website. 

48   The implemented measures focus, among others, on high-risk sectors, prevention of conflicts of interest and 
whistle-blowers.  The  2026  monitoring  and  progress  evaluation  report  is  expected  to  be  published  by  30 
June 2026. Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 62. 

49  Resolution No. 313 
50   Country visit Lithuania, STT. In June 2025, a working group was created in view of preparing the second 
implementation  plan  for  the  period  of  2026–2029.  Order  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania No. 1R-195. 

51   Country visit Lithuania, General Prosecutor’s Office. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p.8. 
52   In 2024, the STT opened 103 pre-trail investigations and transferred 75 of pre-trail investigations to court. 

Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 44. STT (2026), p. 17. 

53   EPPO (2026), p. 37. 
54   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 44.  
55   In 2024, out of 126 examined cases, there were 123 convictions for both natural and legal  persons against 
22 acquittals. Those were based on Articles 225 (bribery), 226 (bribery of an intermediary), 227 (graft) and 
228 abuse of office). Lithuanian Government (2026a), written input. 

56   Lithuanian  Government  (2026),  written  input,  p.  45.  In  2025,  43  pre-trial  investigations  were  conducted 

against 31 municipal counsellors. STT (2026), p. 23. 

57   Article  228  of  the  criminal  code  is  used  for  numerous  ongoing  criminal  proceedings  involving 
politicians.  The  legislative  votes  were  taken  in  a  context  where  some  members  of  Parliament  could  be 
perceived as having a direct personal or political stake in the outcome; consequently, a group of Members 

8 

 
 
to  the  offence  of  abuse  of  office  that  came  into  force  in  October  202558.  As  a  result,  the 
maximum term of imprisonment was reduced and the offence was reclassified from a ‘serious 
crime’ to a ‘medium-gravity crime’59. The amendment has retroactive effect, namely it now 
applies  both  to  pending  cases  in  courts  and  to  those  with  final  judgments  not  yet  fully 
executed.  

Substantial efforts continue to be carried out with a view to addressing shortcomings in 
the fight against foreign bribery60. In October 2025, the STT published tailored guidelines 
intended  for  all  companies,  institutions  and  organisations  involved  in  international 
transactions  or  financial  flows  in  view  of  identifying  potential  cases  of  bribery  of  foreign 
officials,  and  to  provide  information  on  how  to  report  on  such  incidents61.  The  OECD 
acknowledged Lithuania’s progress in implementing its recommendations of 202362, in view 
of addressing shortcomings in  the fight against foreign  bribery.  According to  the follow-up 
report, Lithuania has fully implemented 27 recommendations, partially implemented 14, and 
not implemented 863.  

While  the  current  framework  remains  unchanged,  efforts  are  being  made  to  better 
implement  rules  on  declarations  of  private  interests.  Despite  the  continued  lack  of 
systemic checks of declarations of private interests64, the Chief Official Ethics Commission 
(COEC) carries out monthly checks targeting the highest‑risk positions to ensure compliance 
under  the  Law  on  the  Adjustment  of  Public  and  Private  Interests.  In  2025,  based  on  those 
checks, an in‑depth assessment was conducted in two cases65. Overall, according to COEC, 
the  implementation  of  the  rules  on  integrity  is  efficient66.  In  2025,  COEC  conducted  23 
investigations under the current rules which resulted in four fines imposed. COEC introduced 
a digital solution integrating the gift‑registration function into the Register of Private Interests 
which offers a centralised digital platform accessible to compliance officers and public‑sector 
officials,  ensuring  uniform  standards,  traceability  and  effective  oversight  of  reporting 
obligations. Additionally, a new decentralised oversight model was launched. It is based on 
cooperation agreements with public‑sector institutions on the basis of which institutions may 
independently  review  their  officials’  declarations  of  private  interests,  compare  them  with 
national‑register data, and manage conflict‑of‑interest risks67.  

of  Parliament  submitted  the  claim  to the  Constitutional  Court  alleging,  inter  alia,  potential  breaches of 
public and private interest rules and constitutional principles in the adoption of these amendments, and the 
Constitutional Court has accepted the request for examination.  

58   Law No. XV-474.  
59   Article 228(1): the maximum term of imprisonment was reduced from 5 years to 4 years. Article 228(2): the 
maximum  term  of  imprisonment  was  reduced  from 7  years  to  6  years. In  this  context,  amendments  were 
adopted to the Law on Criminal Intelligence in October 2025, to mitigate the risk of restricting the use of 
criminal intelligence measures. Law No. XV-475. 

60   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, pp. 8-9. 
61   Guidelines  for  Identifying  and  Reporting  Cases  of  Money  Laundering  Related  to  the  Bribery  of  Foreign 

Officials, Special Investigation Service, 2025, STT official website.  

62   OECD (2023). 
63   OECD (2025). 
64   The Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 9. 
65   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 36. 
66   While the number of persons checked remains similar to the previous years (5942 in 2025, against 5876 in 
2024), the number of persons checked has doubled between 2020 and 2025. In 2025, there was a significant 
increase  in  the  number  of  reports  concerning  infringements  of  integrity  rules  and  in  the  number  of 
complaints  submitted  to  the  COEC.  Overall,  about  80%  of  the  investigations  opened  and  carried  out 
confirm the existence of an infringement. COEC (2026), pp. 23, 9. 

67   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 36. 

9 

 
 
While  the  current  lobbying  framework  is  working  well,  a  working  group  was 
established to reflect on further improvement of the current rules. According to COEC, 
in  2025,  the  number  of  notifications  on  potential  infringements  of  the  Law  on  Lobbying 
Activities68  received  was  similar  to  previous  years69  and  in  2025,  COEC  carried  out  13 
investigations  in  this  context.  Following  an  analysis  of  lobbying  activities  and  its 
implementation,  the  STT  recommended  modifying  the  Law  on  Lobbying  Activities70.  In 
particular, the results showed gaps and exceptions in the regulation, allowing a wide range of 
actors  to  influence  legislative  processes  without  having  to  submit  to  transparency 
requirements. In addition, according to the STT, the implementation of the regulation and its 
oversight  proved  to  be  deficient  and  under-resourced.  Following  discussions  and  feedback 
from  various  stakeholders,  COEC,  responsible  for  the  oversight  of  the  lobbying  activities, 
established a working group with the aim to discuss the issues at stake and propose possible 
improvements71.  

The number of reports on whistleblowing continues to increase and numerous activities 
implementing the current rules are ongoing. The whistleblowing reports for the last years 
continue to be on the rise with 97 reports received in 202572. The Prosecutor General’s Office 
provided 280 consultations to whistleblowers and representatives of internal channels through 
the whistleblower consultation hotline (in comparison to 286 in 2022, 259 in 2023 and 258 in 
2024)73.  The  survey  organised  in  2025  on  the  Whistleblower  Protection  in  Healthcare 
Institutions  concluded  that  despite  high  awareness  of  the  obligation  to  establish  internal 
channels,  gaps  remain,  particularly  in  the  private  sector74.  A  targeted  awareness-raising 
campaign  was  also  carried  out  regarding  the  rules  in  place75.  In  2020,  the  Office  of  the 
Prosecutor General developed recommendations on the initiation of criminal proceedings in 
cases arising from whistleblower reports. Building on this work, in 2025 the Office continues 
to develop additional guidance in view of ensuring effectiveness and consistency in handling 
of cases across all stages of the criminal investigation procedure.  

Efforts  continue  in  monitoring  and  addressing  the  high-risk  areas  of  corruption. 
Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU show that 26% of companies in Lithuania 
(EU average 30%) think that corruption has prevented them from winning a public tender in 
practice in the last three years76. 65% of businesses perceive the level of independence of the 
public  procurement  review  body  (district  courts)  as  very  or  fairly  good  which  has 
significantly  increased  in  comparison  with  2025  (49%)77.  The  Single  Market  and 
Competitiveness  Scoreboard  on  access  to  public  procurement  in  Lithuania  reports  11%  of 
single  bids  for  2025  (27%  EU  average).  Based  on  public  perceptions,  the  sectors  most 

68   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 36. 
69   The lobby declarations are submitted through SKAIDRIS which is the platform for lobbying transparency, 

Chief Official Ethics Commission. 

70   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 35. 
71   There  is  no  deadline  for  the  group  to  deliver  its  report.  Country  visit  Lithuania,  COEC.  Lithuanian 

Government (2026), written input, p. 35. 

72   In comparison to 80 in 2024 and 76 in 2023 and 53 in 2022. Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, 

p. 37. 

73   In  2025,  a  total  of  7120  participants  from  the  public  and  private  sectors  took  part  in  training  on  the 
whistleblower  protection  framework  and  internal  reporting  channels.  Lithuanian  Government  (2026), 
written input, p. 37. 

74   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 37. 
75   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 37. 
76   Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the  EU  (2026).  This  is  4 

percentage points above the EU average. 
77   Figure 59, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

10 

 
 
commonly  regarded  as  affected  by  corruption  include  the  justice  system78,  healthcare, 
management of public funds and budget spending, energy, environment, territorial planning, 
and construction79. In 2025, the STT conducted anti-corruption risk assessments of legislation 
and  draft  legislation  as  well  as  corruption  risk  analyses80.  The  completion  date  of  the  new 
electronic  public  procurement  system  has  been  postponed,  while  the  current  temporary  IT 
solution  is  proving  to  function  efficiently81.  In  2025,  all  newly  appointed  Members  of 
Government  received Strategic  anti-corruption guidelines from  the STT82.  Additionally, the 
STT  delivered  the  first  set  of  individual  anti-corruption  guidelines  at  local  level83.  COEC 
conducted independent audits of the Ministry of National Defence and the Defence Resources 
Agency  and,  as  a  result,  issued  recommendations  to  both  institutions  aimed  at  further 
strengthening the management of conflict‑of‑interest risks. Also, shortcomings in the public 
procurement  linked  to  the  defence  sector  were  identified.  In  addition,  COEC  prepared 
guidance on the identification and assessment of such risks84.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The ownership for audiovisual media services continues to operate independently and is 
sufficiently  funded.  The  regulator,  Lietuvos  radijo  ir  televizijos  komisija  (LRTK)  gained 
new competences regarding accessibility of media services and continues to monitor the ban 
of  retransmission  or  internet  distribution  of  television  and  radio  channels  and  programmes 
that  can  be  linked  to  Russia  or  Belarus85.  Even  with  the  additional  competences,  LRTK 
continues  to  consider  it  is  independent  in  its  functioning  as  well  as  adequately  funded  and 
equipped with enough human resources to support its expanded responsibilities86. The Media 
Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM)  reports  a  continuously  very  low  risk  (3%)  for  the  independence 
and effectiveness of the media authority87.  

The  situation  regarding  the  governance  and  funding  framework  of  the  public 
broadcaster is challenging, with discussions ongoing on possible legislative reforms, and 

78   Regarding initiatives to fight corruption in the justice system, see 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 4. 
79   STT, Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2025. According to STT, the experience of corruption is significantly 
lower than the estimated prevalence  – 11% of residents report having paid a bribe in the past 12 months. 
The  proportion  of  residents  who  have  paid  a  bribe  has  not  changed  significantly  since  2020.  STT, 
Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2025. 

80   Overall,  47  assessments  were  conducted  in  high-risk  areas,  such  as  public  procurement  in  healthcare, 
construction,  transport/infrastructure,  defence,  agriculture,  environment,  spending  of  EU  funds,  urban 
planning. Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 42. STT (2026), pp. 29-31. 

81   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 11. The new central public procurement information system is  
expected  to  be  operational  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2027.  Country  visit  Lithuania,  Public  Procurement 
Office. 

82   The main aim of this STT initiative, which has been carried out since 2024, is to manage corruption risks in 
the  whole  area  of  the  responsibility  of  each  minister,  by  providing  timely  information  on  the  corruption 
risks  in  the  policy  areas  of  the  ministers,  as  well  as  to  discuss  possible  recommendations  or  solutions. 
Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 10. See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 33. 
83   The  guidelines  include  information  on  existing  corruption  risks  in  each  municipality  based  on  outputs  of 
investigation,  analytics,  corruption  prevention,  anti-corruption  awareness  raising.  In  this  context,  six 
workshops  were  organised,  including  specialised  workshops  for  corruption  prevention  specialists  in 
municipalities. Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 34. 

84   The  guidance  defines  various  levels  of  likelihood  and  intensity  of  conflict  of  interest  risks  and  sets  out 
detailed  criteria  applicable  to  each  level.  It  describes  risk  categories  and  their  core  indicators,  identifies 
circumstances  that  may give rise  to  each  type  of risk,  and provides  practical  examples of  how  such  risks 
may be detected. Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 36. 

85   Country visit Lithuania, LRTK. 
86   Country visit Lithuania, LRTK. 
87   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 10. 

11 

 
 
changes made to its funding model. The annual budget of the Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas 
ir televizija (LRT) for the period 2026-2028 was set at the 2025 level of EUR 79.6 million88. 
As of 2029, LRT will receive 0.75% of personal income tax revenue and 0.8% of excise tax 
revenue  collected  the  previous  year,  down  from  the  current  levels  of  1%  and  1.3%. 
According to LRT Council89, this decision was justified by the increase in the defence budget 
in  response  to  the  geopolitical  situation.  The  Constitutional  Court  will  assess  the  changed 
funding law against constitutional provisions on media independence, pluralistic democracy 
and responsible governance90. The Venice Commission recommended to Lithuania to amend 
the  financing  model  of  LRT  based  on  a  comprehensive  assessment,  carried  out  in  close 
consultation with the LRT and other stakeholders concerned, of whether the current funding 
model  is  adequate  to  enable  the  LRT  to  fulfil  its  public  service  remit  effectively91.  A 
parliamentary  working  group  established  to  re-assess  LRT  governance  proposed  a  new 
financing  model  of  LRT,  based  on  a  10-year  public  service  contract  with  a  government-
designated body, which would define LRT’s tasks and objectives, ensuring that LRT services 
are distinct from those provided by commercial media.  

Legislative  initiatives  concerning  the  governance  and  leadership  of  the  public 
broadcaster LRT raised concerns about risks to its independence and generated public 
protests.  In  November  2025,  a  group  of  Members  of  Parliament  proposed  a  bill  to  change 
LRT Law, that would significantly weaken the dismissal safeguards for the Director General 
of  LRT,  allowing  the  current  LRT  Council  to  dismiss  the  current  LRT  Director-General92. 
The  bill  in  question  would  have  allowed  for  simple  majority  to  dismiss  the  LRT  Director-
General without specific reason, while current rules require a two-thirds majority to take such 
action. The bill was initially discussed in expedited procedure. Due to strong criticism93 and 
public  protests,  that  stakeholders  qualified  to  be  of  unprecedented  dimension,  the 
parliamentary  works  were  halted. Parliament established a working  group to  prepare a new 
draft  law  on  LRT  governance.  In  February  2026,  the  working  group  submitted  for  the 
consideration  of  Parliament  the  draft  law  covering  the  extension  of  the  membership  and 
powers  of  the  Council,  introduction  of  a  new  governing  body  -  the  board,  as  well  as  the 
dismissal  grounds  and  procedure  for  the  Director-General94.  In  March  2026,  the  Venice 
Commission  issued  an  opinion95  on  the  draft  amendments  to  the  LRT  Law.  Following  the 
opinion,  further  amendments  were  introduced  by  the  Parliamentary  Committee,  while  a 
follow-up opinion from the Venice Commission was requested by the LRT administration96. 

88   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 30. 
89   Country visit Lithuania, LRT Council. 
90   Constitutional Court of Lithuania, Case No KT9-S8/2026. 
91   Venice Commission Opinion, para. 102 (B). 
92   In the course of the parliamentary debate over the bill presented in November 2025, the LRT journalists, the 
Prime Minister and the President supported the resignation of the LRT Council as a solution for resolving 
the conflict between the Council and the Director-General; however, the LRT Council remained in function. 
Country visit Lithuania (2026), LRT Council. 

93   Critical opinions came, among others, from the Ministry of Culture, Parliamentary Legal Office, European 
Broadcasting Union and media associations. The European Parliament adopted a  resolution of 22 January 
2026 on the attempted takeover of Lithuania’s public broadcaster and the threat to democracy in Lithuania 
(2026/2568(RSP)). 

94   Country visit Lithuania, Ministry of Culture. 
95   Venice  Commission  recommended,  i.a.,  that  Lithuania  review  the  LRT  funding  framework  and  retain 
stronger safeguards for the dismissal of the Director-General. Venice Commission Opinion, para 102 (C-D). 
96   On 29 April 2026, the Parliamentary Committee on Culture postponed further consideration of the draft law 
pending  the  Venice  Commission's  follow-up  assessment.  The  Follow-up  Opinion  was  issued  on  6  May 
2026 and is to be submitted for endorsement at the Venice Commission's June 2026 plenary session. On 13 
May 2026, the parliamentary Committee on Culture approved revised amendments to the LRT Law. 

12 

 
 
On 2 June 2026, the Seimas adopted a new version of the law. The adopted law retains the 
requirement  of  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  LRT  Council  for  the  dismissal  of  the  Director-
General before the expiry of the term of office and limits such dismissal to specific grounds97. 
The National Audit Office’s audit98 to assess the activities of LRT for 2021–2024 in terms of 
economy,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  was  concluded  in  November  2025  with  nine 
recommendations  to  several  institutions99.  LRT  administration  responded  positively  to  the 
Audit Office recommendations issued and undertook measures for their implementation100.  

Following an initial reduction, the budget for the Media Support Fund was restored to 
the previous level of financing. The budget allocated to the Media Support Fund for 2026 
was initially reduced by EUR 0.6 million compared to 2025, setting the Fund’s allocation at 
EUR  9.9  million.  Subsequently,  the  Government  announced  that  additional  resources  had 
been secured to restore the Fund’s financing to its previous level. The Media Support Fund 
awarded  grants  to  investigative  journalists.  The  Lithuanian  Journalists’  Union  continuously 
reports that the fund awarding rules still favour existing and larger media service providers, 
making  it  difficult  for  smaller  and  new  media  service  providers,  which  directly  affects 
editorial independence and sustainability, while the Media Support Fund framework includes 
dedicated support schemes for regional, local, cultural and minority-language media, as well 
as  operational  support  measures  aimed  at  strengthening  the  sustainability  of  smaller  media 
outlets101. The data from a public information system (VIRSIS), continuously shows that state 
advertising  is  not  distributed  to  a  diverse  range  of  media  service  providers  and  the 
Government is working on a solution to enhance balance between media outlets. There were 
no changes made to VIRSIS which still does not account for ownership via proxies, but the 
Government is working on legislative changes to the Law on the Provision of Information to 
the  Public  as  regards  transparency  of  the  ownership  and  to  ensure  that  data  on  state 
advertising  of  public  sector  entities  and  other  transactions  with  media  organisations  be 
automatically  uploaded  into  this  database.  According  to  the  MPM  2026,  media  ownership 
transparency  is  at  low  risk  (18%)102.  News  media  concentration  remains  very  high  and 
Lithuanian law still does not provide for specific rules on market concentration in the media 
sector. 

The  situation  regarding  access  to  documents  is  stable  and  the  scope  of  information 
provided in public databases is expanding. Overall, the current legal framework provides 
effective  measures  for  oversight,  appeal  and  enforcement,  even  though  statistical  data  on 

97   The  law  also  establishes  a  new  five-member  Board  of  the  LRT,  expands  the  composition  of  the  LRT 
Council from 12 to 15 members, shortens Council members’' terms from six to four years, and introduces a 
dedicated office to support the LRT Council's work. Bill No XVP-1247(4). 

98   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 6. 
99   Country visit Lithuania (2026), National Audit Office. Out of nine recommendations three were addressed 
to the Government, one to the Ministry of Culture, four to the administration of LRT, and one to the LRT 
Council.  Towards  LRT  administration  the  National  Audit  Office  identified,  among  others,  the  LRT’s 
administration  need  to  improve  employee  management  and  social  guarantees  (to  strengthen  the  human 
resource  management  process  by  revising  the  guidelines  for  personnel  search  and  selection),  increase 
accessibility  and  diversity  of  content  (by  establishing  annual  targets  and  implementation  schedules  for 
programs  with  Lithuanian  subtitles,  adapted  for  persons  with  visual  impairments  and  translated  into 
Lithuanian  sign  language,  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  law),  reduce  reliance  on  paid 
broadcasts,  strengthen  procurement  controls,  and  enhance  institutional  oversight.  LRT’s  administration 
agreed with all of the recommendations. 

100   Country visit Lithuania (2026), LRT. 
101  Lithuanian Government (2026), additional written input. 
102   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 16. 

13 

 
 
refusals  or  delays  is  not  collected  centrally103.  Following  the  amendments  to  the  Law  on 
Political Organisations104, journalists now have the right to receive data concerning members 
of political organisations free of charge from the register, which became operational in April 
2026105. Although the MPM 2026 refers to some issues about public institutions withholding 
information  in  response  to  requests  based  on  personal  data  protection,  it  considers  the 
protection of the right to information a low -risk area (32%)106. 

The  professional  environment  for  journalists  in  Lithuania  remains  stable  and  state-
guaranteed  legal  aid  was  introduced.  Amendments  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  to 
implement the anti-SLAPP Directive were adopted in December 2025107. The new legislation 
also applies to domestic cases. In parallel, amendments to the Law on State-Guaranteed Legal 
Aid provide that people defending lawful public participation who request the application of 
the early dismissal procedure for manifestly unfounded claims are entitled to state-guaranteed 
legal  aid108.  At  the  same  time,  some  stakeholders  report  an  increase  in  legal  proceedings 
involving journalists and media outlets in recent years109. While not all cases are considered 
as SLAPPs, certain characteristics, including their duration and the nature of the claims, have 
raised  concerns  among  stakeholders  about  the  potential  use  of  legal  action  to  discourage 
journalistic  activity.  According  to  stakeholders,  this  may  have  a  chilling  effect  on  media 
freedom, particularly affecting investigative journalism as well as smaller and regional media 
outlets110.  Since  the  publication  of  the  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  Council  of  Europe’s 
Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published one new 
alert  about  Lithuania,  related  to  the  independence  and  effective  functioning  of  the  public 
broadcaster111. Mapping Media Freedom platform issued two new alerts, including one also 
in the context of LRT-related reforms 112.The 2026 MPM indicator for journalistic profession, 
standards, and protection remains stable at medium-low risk (35%)113. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

The  increasing  use  of  fast-track  parliamentary  procedures  has  raised  concerns  from 
businesses  and  the  civil  society  about  the  possibility  of  public  participation  in  key 
legislative  procedures.  Stakeholders  report  concerns  regarding  the  increasing  use  of 
expedited  procedures  for  the  adoption  of  legislation  in  particularly  sensitive  areas,  such  us 
public  service  media,  the  national  human  rights  institution,  tax  matters,  or  the  Criminal 
Code114. According to stakeholders, such practices limit the possibility of public scrutiny and 
debate. Moreover, concerns have been expressed regarding the limited consideration given to 

103   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 30. 
104   2025 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 6. 
105   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 30. 
106   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 10. 
107   Ministry of Justice, written input. 
108   Ministry of Culture written input. 
109   These cases concerned issues such as defamation, personal data protection and commercial interests, and in 
some instances involved lengthy judicial procedures. Country visit Lithuania (2026), Lithuanian Journalists’ 
Union. 

110   Country visit Lithuania (2026), Lithuanian Journalists’ Union. 
111   Council of Europe Safety of Journalist Platform (2026). The Lithuanian authorities have not replied to the 

alert.  

112   Mapping  Media  Freedom  (2026).  One  new  alert  concerning  statements  by  a  politician  questioning  the 
impartiality and transparency of the public broadcaster LRT and  referring to ongoing audits related to its 
activities. 

113   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 10. 
114   Country visit Lithuania, National NGO Coalition, Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Investors’ Forum. 

14 

 
 
expert  opinions,  in  particular  on  economic  legislation115,  and  the  difficulty  to  follow  the 
decision  -making  process.  There  is  no  mandatory  requirement  for  conducting  regulatory 
impact  assessments  for  primary  laws  initiated  by  Parliament,  while  the  use  of  impact 
assessments  for  laws  initiated  by  the  executive  is  comparatively  high116.  According  to 
European  standards,  the  legislative  process  needs  to  be  efficient,  transparent,  inclusive  and 
democratic,  and  the  legislature  should  follow  the  standard  legislative  procedure  and  avoid 
resorting to expedited adoption of legal acts on a regular basis117. 

More  than  half  of  companies  surveyed  in  Lithuania  express  confidence  in  the 
effectiveness of investment protection. 56% of companies are very or fairly confident that 
investments  are  protected  by  law  and  courts,  a  figure  which  has  slightly  decreased  in 
comparison with 2025 (59%) 118. As regards authorities relevant for economic operators, 59% 
of companies perceive the level of independence of the national competition authority (The 
Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania) as very or fairly good, a figure which has 
significantly  increased  in  comparison  with  2025  (41%)119.  The  Supreme  Administrative 
Court  has  jurisdiction  in  several  business-related  cases,  including  in  cases  related  to  public 
procurement, public contracts and economic regulation. A number of judicial mechanisms to 
improve  efficiency  are  available  in  these  cases,  including  the  possibility  to  apply  interim 
measures and the consolidation of multiple appeals120.  

On  1  January  2026,  Lithuania  had  11  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  a  decrease  of  9  compared  to  the  previous 
year121. At that time, Lithuania’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years  that had 
been  implemented  was  at  83%  (compared  to  68%  in  2025;  17%  remained  pending),  the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 5 years and 8 months 
(compared  to  4  years  and  7  months  in  2025)122,  and  the  oldest  leading  judgment  has  been 
pending implementation for almost 18 years123. As regards the respect of payment deadlines, 
on  31  December  2025  there  were  no  cases  awaiting  confirmation  of  payments  (same  as  in 
2024)124.  By  17  June  2026,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending  implementation  had 
decreased to 9125. In June 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe closed 
the  examination  of  the  judgment  Macatė  v  Lithuania,  having  considered  that  the  necessary 
individual  and  general  measures  were  taken,  and  the  Constitutional  Court  ruling  on  the 
unconstitutionality of the impugned legal provision rendered it inapplicable126.  

115   Country visit Lithuania, Investor’s Forum. 
116   OECD (2025), p. 163.  
117   Venice Commission, Updated Rule of Law Checklist (December 2025), para. 34. 
118   Figures  52  and  53,  2026  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  29%  and  28%  of  the  surveyed  investors  respectively 
perceive  the frequent  changes  in  legislation  or  concerns  about  the  quality  of  the  law-making  process  and 
concerns  about  quality,  efficiency  or  independence  of  justice  as  a  reason  for  the  lack  of  confidence  in 
investment protection.  

119   Figure 60, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
120   Figures 66 and 67, 2026 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. 

121   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe.   
122   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 2026. EIN (2026), written input, pp. 6-7. 

123   Judgment of the ECtHR, 27527/03, L.v Lithuania, pending implementation since 2007.  
124   Council of Europe (2026), p. 163.   
125   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
126   Committee of Ministers (2025), Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)134. 

15 

 
 
Changes  to  the  law  on  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons  increased  number  of  the 
Ombudspersons  to  three.  In  June  2025,  Parliament  adopted,  through  the  expedited 
procedure,  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons,  which  is  the 
national  human  rights  institution,  accredited  with  ‘A’  status127.  The  amendments  increased 
the number of Ombudspersons to three. While the law does not expressly include a thematic 
specialisation for the third Ombudsperson, the preparatory works, parliamentary hearings and 
public  communications  presented  the  new  position  as  an  ‘Ombudsperson  for  Small  and 
Medium  Enterprises’128,  although  the  Legal  Department  of  Parliament  alerted  to  the 
unconstitutionality of including a specialised Ombudsperson defending the interests of only a 
narrow  group  of  applicants129.    Concerns  were  raised  with  regard  to  the  appointment 
procedure  of  the  third  Ombudsperson,  as  the  appointment  of  two  nominees  failed  in 
Parliament130.  To  address  such  concerns,  draft  amendments  were  presented  in  Parliament, 
which were ultimately rejected131. A new Ombudsperson was appointed on 23 April 2026. At 
the  time  of  the  latest  reaccreditation  of  the  institution,  the  accreditation  committee  had 
recommended to  ensure the formalisation of a  clear, transparent, and participatory selection 
and appointment process of Ombudspersons132. In 2026, additional state budget funding was 
allocated to the institution. 

The  civic  space  remains  open  and  efforts  are  made  to  improve  effective  civil  society 
participation  in  decision-making,  while  legislative  changes  may  impact  Civil  Society 
Organisations’ (CSOs) access to financing. The civic space continues to be rated as ‘open’ 
by  Civicus133,  and  civil  society  has  been  particularly  active  during  the  reporting  period, 
notably regarding the proposed changes to the LRT law134. However, CSOs report increasing 
concerns regarding negative narratives on advocacy activities and civil society135. Obstacles 
to  the  right  of  access  to  information  also  continue  to  be  reported136.  The  Government  is 
implementing the project ‘Strengthening the role of NGOs and increasing their transparency’ 
in  partnership with  CSOs, with  the aim to  improve effective civil  society participation, and 
improve  accountability  and  trust137.  While  the  project  is  positively  assessed  by  CSOs138, 

127   Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) (2024). 
128   Ministry of Economy and Innovation (2025).  
129   Public  communications  also  indicate  that  the  third  Ombudsperson  would  be  tasked  with  proposing  legal 
amendments to prevent excessive regulation and implementing the legitimate interests of SMEs. Lithuanian 
Government (2026), written input, pp. 53-54. 

130   In  the  first  case,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  candidate  did  not  meet  the  applicable  statutory  eligibility 
requirements of necessary education; in the second case, the process was halted due to concerns as to the 
political  neutrality  of  the  candidate,  who  had  close  links  to  the  ruling  political  party  and  had  held  senior 
posts in the current Government, including Vice-Minister of Health and, later, Chancellor of the Ministry of 
Justice (Lithuanian Government (2026), written input,  p. 54). Stakeholders also express concerns that the 
attempt to nominate candidates linked to the Government may tamper with the institution’s independence 
(Country visit Lithuania, Investors’ Forum).  

131   In line with the proposed amendments of the first draft, a person would not be eligible for appointment as 
an Ombudsperson if, during the five years preceding the submission of their candidacy to Parliament, they 
held  the  status  of  a  state  politician  (Lithuanian  Government  (2026),  written  input,  p.  54).  Following  the 
rejection  of  this  draft,  a  second  one  was  submitted,  omitting  the  prohibition  to  participate  in  political 
activities, but adding the requirement for political party members to suspend their party membership before 
nomination, which was rejected as well.  

132   GANHRI (2024). 
133   Lithuania’s score is 85/100. Ratings by CIVICUS are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

134   Country visit Lithuania, National NGO Coalition, Human Rights Monitoring Institute. 
135   Ibidem. 
136   Country visit Lithuania, National NGO  Coalition, Human Rights Monitoring Institute. 2025 Rule of Law 

Report, Lithuania, p. 15. 

137   Lithuanian Government (2026), written input, p. 65. 

16 

 
 
concerns  remain  regarding  the  possibility  for  meaningful  participation  in  decision-making 
processes,  especially  at  local  level139.  Proposed  changes  to  the  Law  on  Charity  and 
Sponsorship  aim  at  broadening  the  entities  to  whom  taxpayers  can  allocate  a  certain 
percentage  of  their  income  tax,  which  are  currently  limited  to  non-governmental 
organisations and trade unions, and may therefore have an impact on the access of CSOs to 
funding, as such allocations represent one of their main sources of financing140. 

138   Country visit Lithuania, National NGO Coalition. 
139   See also paragraph on legislative procedures. 
140   The  draft  proposes  the  inclusion  of  religious  communities,  communities  and  religious  centres,  state  and 
municipal schools among the entities who can benefit from the allocations. These changes revert  from the 
legislation introduced in 2023, which came into force in 2025, and had been welcomed by civil society (see 
2023 Rule of Law Report, Lithuania, p. 23). 

17 

 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law Report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Bill 
https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAK/b969e0a05dba11f1b20fcb7db81bf4bd?positionInSearchResults=6
&searchModelUUID=38f21d83-21ff-4b2b-b3c7-7f539bbab3cb. 

XVP-1247(4), 

No. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Lithuania, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/lithuania/. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2026),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2026,  Country 
report for Lithuania. 

Chief Official Ethics Commission, Annual Report 2026. 

Constitutional  Court  of  Lithuania,  judgment  of  15  January  2026,  case  No.  15/2025  –  Paieška  - 
Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) (2026), Contribution from the Council of Bars 
and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2026 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 to member States on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer. 

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  (2025),  Council  of  Europe:  Convention  on  the  Protection  of  the  Profession  of 
Lawyer CETS 226 - Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. 

Council  of  Europe  :  Committee  of  Ministers (2025),  Resolution  CM/ResDH(2025)134  Execution  of 
the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Macatė against Lithuania. 

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

Council  of  Europe  (2026x),  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  decisions  of  the  European 
Court  of  Human  Rights  –  19th  Annual  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  –  2025, 
https://rm.coe.int/2025-annual-report/48802b1633.  

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2025), Updated Rule of Law Checklist. 

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. 

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

European Commission (2026), Flash Eurobarometer 582 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption 
in the EU.  

European  Commission  (2026),  Special  Eurobarometer  573  on  Corruption.European  Commission 
(2023), 2023 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania. 

European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania. 

European Commission (2026), 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, Misiūnas v. Lithuania, case no. 38686/22. 

18 

 
European Implementation Network (2026), Input from the European Implementation Network for the 
2026 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (2026),  Input  from  the  European  Network  of 
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2026), Annual Report 2025. 

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 Bar Association (2026), Input from the Lithuanian Bar Association for the 2026 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Lithuanian  Government  (2026),  Input  from  Lithuania  for  the  2026  Rule  of  Law  Report.Ministry  of 
Economy  and  Innovation  (2025),  Press  release  of  30  June  2025  on  Seimas  approval  of  the 
establishment 
business  Ombusdman, 
small 
https://eimin.lrv.lt/lt/ziniasklaidai/naujienos/seimas-pritare-smulkiojo-ir-vidutinio-verslo-
ombudsmeno-pareigybes-steigimui/?utm_source. 

and  medium-sized 

position 

the 

of 

of 

(2025),  Better 

OECD 
practices 
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/09/better-regulation-
practices-across-the-european-union-2025_a3dfd5e6/6f007516-
en.pdf#page=174&zoom=100,83,57. 

the  European  Union 

regulation 

across 

2025, 

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. 

OECD  (2025),  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention  Phase  3  Follow-Up  Report  on  Lithuania 
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-anti-bribery-convention-phase-3-follow-up-report-on-
lithuania_1699ba63-en.html. 

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. 

Special Investigation Service (2026), 2025 Annual Report. 

Special  Investigation  Service  (2025),  Guidelines  for  Identifying  and  Reporting  Cases  of  Money 
Laundering Related to the Bribery of Foreign Officials. 

Special Investigation Service (2026), Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2025.   

Transparency International (2026), Corruption Perceptions Index 2025. 

19 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in November 2025 and February 2026 with: 

•  Bar Association 
•  COEC 
•  Constitutional Court 
•  Human Rights Monitoring Institute 
• 
Investors’ Forum 
•  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 Audit Authority 
•  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) 

20