Article 346(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences makes a breach of animal welfare requirements punishable by a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 120, and, if committed repeatedly, by a fine of EUR 120 to EUR 230.
Under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, cruelty to an animal or torture resulting in the animal’s death or mutilation is punishable even by imprisonment for up to one year, and a legal person may also be held liable.
A home pig castration filmed in Hungary has not yet been assessed by any institution, so the legal position in that country remains unclear. The sources provided regulate Lithuanian, not Hungarian, law; therefore, the practical liability perspective in this story would be most relevant to an analogous case in Lithuania. In Lithuania, such a case would be assessed by reference to whether the person who performed the procedure was entitled to do so and whether analgesia requirements were complied with, because castration itself is not prohibited: Article 5(1)(4) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Animal Welfare and Protection expressly classifies “animal castration” among acts that are not deemed cruelty to animals. The precise legal issue is different: whether the castration was performed without the required analgesia and without competence, since Article 4(2)(8) prohibits “operating on animals without anaesthesia, except in cases provided for by legal acts.” A pig is a farm animal within the meaning of Article 2(27) of the same law, namely an animal kept for production or other farming purposes, and therefore the special requirements applicable to farm animals apply, not only the general rules. The scale of sanctions to which such an infringement may lead is set out in Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offences and, where more serious consequences arise, in Article 310 of the Criminal Code.
The rule cited in the sources as reported by the media is that surgical castration of piglets older than seven days must be performed by a veterinarian, using anaesthesia and additional prolonged analgesia. If the procedure recorded in the video was performed without this, in Lithuania it would disclose elements of a breach of Article 4(2) of the law, because paragraph 9 provides an exception only for lawful castration, not for any operation performed without analgesia. The most serious link is Article 310 of the Criminal Code: cruelty to an animal or torture of an animal resulting in the animal’s death or mutilation is punishable by a fine, community service, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year, and a legal person is also liable for this offence under paragraph 2. Liability is also accompanied by long-term consequences: under Article 6(2) of the law, a person penalised under Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offences and from whom all animals have been confiscated may not be an animal keeper for two or four years, depending on the relevant paragraph, while a person convicted under Article 310 of the Criminal Code may be subject to a ten-year prohibition pursuant to a court decision. Supervision is carried out by the State Food and Veterinary Service, whose competence is established in Article 3(1) of the law; under Article 21(3), its officials may enter premises where animals are kept and, where there is a risk that an animal may be mutilated or die, even without the owner’s consent. Under Article 20(2), animal keepers must allow inspections of animals, premises and documents and comply with officials’ instructions, while under Article 20(1) every person must report known cases of cruelty to the competent authorities.
In the Hungarian case, the actual course of events will depend on whether the local authorities inspect the farm and determine whether the persons who performed the procedures had the required qualifications. There are as yet no official findings, so it is too early to assess the level of liability. If an analogous case arose in Lithuania and an operation without analgesia were established, the most likely initial consequence would be an administrative offence report under Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offences; where there are indications of cruelty resulting in the animal’s death or mutilation, the case would move into the criminal justice system under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, carrying the risk of imprisonment for up to one year and a ten-year prohibition on keeping animals. In practical terms, it is also important that a publicly disclosed recording may itself become the basis for a pre-investigation check: under Article 21, officials of the State Food and Veterinary Service may carry out an inspection on the farm and collect evidence.
The regulation was initiated by members of parliament in response to public disclosures of large-scale animal cruelty cases, which exposed systemic shortcomings: lack of institutional cooperation, evasion of liability, corruption, and the operation of illegal breeding facilities. The aim was to ensure the protection of animal rights by providing that a veterinary service provider’s failure to report deliberate welfare violations may also constitute cruel treatment; abolishing warnings as a form of penalty; establishing liability for concealing cruel treatment and for negligent supervision; and restricting illegal animal breeding. The principal argument was that the rules should be effective in practice and enable timely responses to violations. In its assessment of the draft, the Legal Department raised doubts as to the legal basis of the proposed provision, namely whether administrative or criminal liability for failure to report could be imposed as liability for cruelty to animals.
Under Article 524(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the public display of a Nazi swastika is punishable by a fine of EUR 300 to EUR 700 for individuals, and EUR 600 to EUR 1,200 for managers or other responsible persons of legal entities.
EuroLeague’s EUR 30,000 fine imposed on Žalgiris is a disciplinary sanction by a private sports organisation, but a parallel dimension of state liability also arises: the public display of a Nazi swastika in the arena during a match falls within Article 524 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania. The precise legal issues are twofold: who is liable under Article 524 of the Code of Administrative Offences for the display of the swastika in the supporters’ section, and how the EUR 30,000 EuroLeague fine affects the club’s corporate income tax position. The first issue is determined under Articles 524 and 4 of the Code of Administrative Offences; the second under Article 31(1)(3) of the Law on Corporate Income Tax.
Under Article 524(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the dissemination, use at gatherings or in public places, or other public display of a Nazi swastika is punishable by a fine of EUR 300 to EUR 700 for individuals, and EUR 600 to EUR 1,200 for managers or other responsible persons of legal entities. A repeated offence under Article 524(2) is sanctioned more severely: EUR 500 to EUR 900 for individuals and EUR 800 to EUR 1,500 for responsible persons of a legal entity. Under Article 4(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the place where an administrative offence is committed is the place where the person acted or where the consequences provided for in the Special Part arose; here, that is the Kaunas arena where the banner was raised. The subject of liability under Article 4(1) is the person who committed the offence within the territory of the Lithuanian state, namely the supporters who raised the banner, while liability of the club’s management under Article 524(1) would depend on whether the club’s responsible persons foresaw or permitted the display. The mere fact that the swastika appeared in the corner of the banner and was noticed only by more observant supporters after reviewing photo galleries does not constitute an exception: Article 524 prohibits any public display, irrespective of the scale of the display or intent. As regards corporate income tax, Article 31(1)(3) of the Law on Corporate Income Tax prohibits the deduction from income of contractual penalties, fines paid into the budget and state funds, default interest, and other sanctions for breaches of legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania. The EuroLeague fine is not paid into the Lithuanian budget, and therefore that provision does not apply to it directly; whether it may be recognised as an allowable deduction should instead be assessed under Article 17(2)(4) or under the general rule linking expenses to the earning of income.
The practical consequences for the club and the supporters fall into three independent tracks:
Point to monitor: in the near term, it is worth awaiting the authorities’ decision on the outcome of the investigation, namely whether administrative offence reports will be drawn up under Article 524 of the Code of Administrative Offences and, if so, against whom specifically.
Under Article 524(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the public display of signs formed on the basis of the Nazi swastika entails a fine for individuals of EUR 300 to EUR 700, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 500 to EUR 900.
If infringements recur within the next year, the arena capacity for one home game will be limited to 80 percent and certain sectors will be closed.
Žalgiris’ position involves two intersecting chains of liability: a private EuroLeague disciplinary sanction imposed on the club and potential state liability for the specific individual who displayed the banner. The precise legal issue concerning the display of the symbol itself is assessed under Article 524 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, which prohibits the public display of signs formed on the basis of the Nazi swastika and provides for a fine for individuals of EUR 300 to EUR 700, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 500 to EUR 900. If, during the pre-trial investigation, the elements of incitement to hatred were established, Article 170 of the Criminal Code would apply; under that provision, the production or dissemination of materials inciting hatred is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to one year, while public contempt is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years under paragraph 2.
The decision of the EuroLeague disciplinary commission is an act of a private sports organisation: it was imposed on the club not under Lithuanian law but under the league’s regulations, and therefore it was not imposed by a court or by administrative-law authorities. In the state-law chain, the club has already referred the matter to law enforcement, so the pre-trial investigation concerning the banner will have to be conducted by a prosecutor or pre-trial investigation officers; liability in this respect will fall not on the club but on the individual who prepared or displayed the prohibited symbol. From a financial perspective, the EUR 30,000 fine payable by the club is not “a fine paid into the budget for a breach of legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania”; accordingly, the prohibition in Article 31(1)(3) of the Law on Corporate Income Tax would not automatically apply to it. That provision applies only to state sanctions, not to penalties imposed by a private regulator. If the EuroLeague fine were classified as an expense related to the earning of income, it would be assessed under the general rules of Article 31 of the Law on Corporate Income Tax, rather than treated as a non-deductible expense by reason of its sanctioning nature. A separate chain may also involve a civil claim: under Article 6.245 of the Civil Code, a pecuniary obligation to compensate losses or pay contractual penalties may arise on a contractual or tortious basis, but the sources provided do not indicate that EuroLeague or the opposing team is seeking damages.
In practical terms, the most important issue for the club is the condition attached to the suspended sanction: within one year from the decision, any similar supporter misconduct will trigger a restriction of arena capacity to 80 percent and the closure of sectors for one home game, which would directly reduce ticket revenue. The second chain is the law-enforcement investigation: if a specific individual is identified, that person faces an administrative fine under Article 524 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and, if indications of incitement to hatred are present, criminal liability under Article 170 of the Criminal Code. For the club, the EUR 30,000 payment will not automatically have the status of a non-deductible expense in tax accounting, because it is not a state sanction within the meaning of Article 31(1)(3) of the Law on Corporate Income Tax.
In the internal disciplinary procedure of the European Parliament, R. Hassan has the right to be heard; this is a minimum defence guarantee which the President’s statement requires to be ensured.
The commentary in Bulletin No. 16 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania on administrative-law practice explains that Members of the European Parliament enjoy immunity from any measure of detention and from being held legally liable in the territories of Member States, and that immunity does not apply only where a Member is caught in the act of committing an offence or where the European Parliament itself waives immunity.
In the case of Rima Hassan, it is still too early to speak of criminal liability or of a decision by the electorate: the actual legal position is an internal European Parliament disciplinary procedure, the possible consequences of which are material and functional, but do not include loss of mandate. The sanctions mentioned in the report, namely loss of the EUR 359 daily allowance and a prohibition on participating in committee work for up to two months, are the most severe disciplinary measures practically applied by the European Parliament, and cannot be accompanied by deprivation of voting rights. The issue is framed by two groups of rules: first, whether the conduct is to be classified as a breach of European Parliament order for which internal sanctions may be imposed; and second, whether the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament would permit Member State authorities to treat the act as a legal offence. The first issue is determined under the European Parliament’s internal procedures, which President R. Metsola has already initiated; the second is determined under the immunity regime applicable to Members of the European Parliament.
In the Lithuanian context, Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Status and Working Conditions of Members of the European Parliament Elected in the Republic of Lithuania is applicable: on Lithuanian territory, a Member of the European Parliament enjoys the same personal inviolability as a Member of the Seimas, unless EU law provides otherwise. The commentary in Bulletin No. It follows that administrative measures of a Member State against a Member of the European Parliament cannot be applied without a procedure for waiver of immunity, initiated by the competent authority of the Member State. The set of sanctions includes:
An important limit is that a Member of the European Parliament cannot be deprived of voting rights, and loss of mandate is not a consequence of disciplinary proceedings at all; it would occur only through elections or resignation. The logic of Article 22(2) of the Statute of the Seimas indicates where the boundary of immunity lies: if the act is to be characterised as political expression within parliamentary premises, criminal prosecution without waiver of immunity would be problematic; if it is characterised as physical damage to another symbol or to property, immunity would no longer afford protection in such a case.
In practical terms, the next stage is a decision by the competent European Parliament bodies on the disciplinary case: the President’s statement provides for clarification, assessment of evidence and a hearing, after which one or more of the sanctions listed above may be imposed. The European Jewish Congress and politicians are calling for the evidence to be made public, so public documentation of the procedure is also likely. The second scenario is an initiative by Member State authorities to seek waiver of immunity if the act is assessed as a legal offence beyond the bounds of the European Parliament’s internal discipline; in that case, the first step would be to await the European Parliament’s decision on immunity, rather than court action. The exhibition of the sculpture “Orange Plague” does not give rise to legal sanctions; it is a matter of organising an exhibition on the basis of an invitation, the consequences of which may be only political and organisational. For R. Hassan herself, the practical risk is limited to material sanctions and restrictions on functional participation; her mandate, the basic component of her remuneration and her voting rights remain unaffected, unless she herself chooses to resign.
Under point II.2.b of the Electoral Guidelines in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters and point II.4 of the Interpretative Declaration on the Stability of Electoral Law, fundamental elements of electoral law, in particular rules governing the allocation of seats, should not be changed less than one year before elections.
Under Article 34(2) of the Constitution, the legislature has a duty to establish legal regulation ensuring the transparency of the electoral process and fair competition among entities exercising the right to stand for election (KT84-N8/2021).
Following the Italian Parliament’s adoption by secret ballot (227 votes to 164) of a new electoral law containing a “majority bonus”, the ultimate validity of the reform now moves to the Constitutional Court, whose standards of representative democracy are defined in the sources provided in relatively strict terms. The urgency factor is central here: the new system is intended to apply already in next year’s parliamentary elections, which engages the prohibition set out in point II.2.b of the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters and point II.4 of the Interpretative Declaration on the Stability of Electoral Law: fundamental elements of electoral law, in particular rules governing the allocation of seats, should not be changed less than one year before an election. The precise legal issue is whether the introduction of a purely proportional system, the abolition of single-member constituencies accounting for approximately one third of seats, and a bonus of up to 17.5% additional seats (70 in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate), conditional on obtaining 42% of the vote, comply with constitutional requirements of free and fair elections and the principle of stability of electoral law. This will be assessed under constitutional electoral-law provisions and the Venice Commission documents as part of the European electoral heritage.
The case law of the Constitutional Court in the sources provided would support the following assessment of the legality of such measures:
The constitutional justice case prepared by civil society groups is the principal next stage: if the court applies the Venice Commission’s one-year stability standard, the application of the law to the forthcoming elections would face a real risk of being suspended or declared unconstitutional.