Correction. The news claim that "the sentence has already been served while in detention" is only partially accurate — formally, the sentence is not deemed served automatically, but only because the court, under Article 66(1)–(2) of the Criminal Code, is obliged to credit the days of detention against the arrest measured in day-nights (1:1). A second nuance: the act of escaping from court, which was disregarded, does not "merge" with the theft case — under Article 241(1) of the Criminal Code, escape while in detention or custody is a separate criminal offence punishable by arrest or imprisonment for up to three years, and a separate pre-trial investigation has been opened into it, with the man now in detention. The detention in the escape case is not credited against the sentence of arrest for theft — it is a separate criminal case with a separate sentence, which the court has not yet imposed. Finally, the phrase "convicted but will not go to prison" would more accurately be formulated as "a sentence of arrest has been imposed which, once the detention is credited, is deemed served".
Under Article 66(2) of the CC, one day of custody is equated to one day of arrest; therefore, the 60-day arrest is deemed served during the period of custody since August.
Under Article 241(1) of the CC, a detained or arrested person who escapes from a place of detention is punishable by arrest or imprisonment for up to three years.
The 60-day arrest sentence imposed on I. Toubali has, in practical terms, already been served: under Article 66(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC), the court is obliged to credit time spent in custody towards the imposed sentence, and Article 66(2) of the CC equates one day of custody with one day of arrest. The man has been in custody since August, so by the end of October there is nothing left of the judgment to enforce — the question of sentence enforcement closes itself. His actual legal position is being shaped not in the criminal sphere, but in two other dimensions: the pre-trial investigation into his escape and the migration field, since he holds no valid residence permit in Lithuania or any other EU Member State. The precise questions are what liability may arise for escaping from court (Article 241(1) of the CC: a detained or arrested person who escapes from a place of detention is punishable by arrest or imprisonment for up to three years) and what migration consequences follow for a third-country national unlawfully present in the EU territory under the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens.
The principal theft case was correctly qualified under Article 178(3) of the CC — unlawful entry into premises (into a shop in Šeškinė, an unlocked cash register, EUR 1,700 stolen); the sanction of this paragraph allows for the imposition of arrest, and had the "high value" element been established, the same article would have applied with imprisonment of up to six years. The prosecutability of the theft is irrelevant here — under Article 178(6) of the CC, private prosecution applies only to paragraphs 1 and 5, whereas prosecution under paragraph 3 is initiated by the prosecutor. Regarding bail, the court assessed two criteria: the limited ability of the proposed guarantor (the girlfriend, with whom the accused is in conflict) to exert influence, and the person's own statement that he intends to leave for France once the case concludes — this grounded doubts as to the guarantor's ability to secure the person's participation in the proceedings. Following his escape from the courthouse on 13 October, a pre-trial investigation was opened under Article 241 of the CC. Even the nine fines already paid for road traffic violations merit separate assessment: given the person's declared intention to leave, they may in practice turn into enforced recovery or, if not recovered, serve as a basis for considering violations of public order in migration decisions. On the migration horizontal, Article 126(1)(3) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens applies: an alien whose presence poses a threat to public order is expelled from Lithuania; expulsion under point 2 also applies where the alien "arrived unlawfully or is unlawfully present" — which corresponds to the fact that he currently holds no valid residence permit in any EU Member State.
The theft judgment is practically concluded for these parties: the sentence is deemed served, and the question of a civil claim by the injured shop for property damage is not addressed in the submitted brief. Other real consequences:
Monitoring point: in the near term, await the procedural decision on the closure of the escape investigation and the migration authorities' decision on expulsion.
The regulation was initiated by the drafters of legislative proposals (members of the Seimas) seeking to mitigate the overly broad rules governing the application of the recidivist status under the Criminal Code. They criticised the fact that recidivism is established even in respect of random, mutually unrelated or privileged offences, and that offences committed by minors systematically contravene Article 27(4) of the Criminal Code. The main proposals were: not to take into account convictions for offences committed before the age of 18; to allow a recidivist to be released from liability where reconciliation with the victim has been reached; and to abolish the strict special rule on the imposition of sentences for recidivists.
riding on a sidewalk today costs not up to EUR 1,800, but a fine of thirty to ninety euros under Article 417(1) of the CAO.
a fine under Article 675(2) of the CAO must be paid no later than within forty calendar days, and where payment is materially impossible, a request may be made to spread the payment over a period of up to two years.
The legally most significant element of this news item is the Minister's proposal to tighten the rules governing the use of electric scooters, since the norms currently in force allow only the application of the general sanctions for road traffic violations rather than a special regime. The precise legal question to be decided by the legislator is whether the new special norms (age threshold, registration, training courses) will alter the current structure of liability and, if so, whether the higher fines will correspond to the ranges applicable to similar offences under other CAO provisions.
The existing legal position for scooter drivers would be as follows:
In addition, Article 423 of the CAO provides an exemplary set of consequences: where the violation resulted in a minor impairment of health, the fine for persons without a driving licence amounts to EUR 600–850, and deprivation of the right to drive for a period of one to two years is mandatorily imposed under Article 423(4) of the CAO. Such deprivation is a decision of a court or other competent authority to withdraw, for a specified period, the right to drive motor vehicles (Article 2(72) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Road Traffic Safety). The conditions for the application of deprivation of the special right are set out in Article 28 of the CAO: deprivation of the right to drive covers the deprivation of the right to drive vehicles of all categories, and it is generally not imposed on a person who uses vehicles due to a disability. Confiscation of property is also possible under Article 29 of the CAO, but only where provided for in the Special Part. A comparison of the proposed fines of up to EUR 1,800 with the current norms shows that the proposal would significantly exceed not only the range for a sidewalk violation, but also that for unlawful driving (EUR 300–450) and even the most serious speeding offence (EUR 450–550). A comparable example from practice is found in the 2019 report on inspections of taxi carriers by Klaipėda City Municipality, which recorded cases where the same offender was penalised more than 20 times, with the sanction for each instance exceeding EUR 1,000; this demonstrates that in cases of repeated violations, more severe sanctions can already today accumulate to similar amounts.
The most realistic directions for further developments:
Correction. [PRAKTIKINE_REIKSME]: The UN Commission's finding is not a court judgment, but it constitutes a factual basis that the prosecution service may use in preparing a pre-trial investigation under Articles 100 and 103 of the Criminal Code, relying on the logic of universal jurisdiction already applied by other states in relation to the events in Ukraine. In practice, the strongest argument lies in combining the elements of "systematicity and state policy" with the specific facts of the attacks — without it, a crime against humanity cannot be proven in the way individual war crimes can. Point to watch: whether the Lithuanian prosecution service will, following this finding, initiate a separate investigation or join the data of the international Joint Investigation Team (JIT), and which specific individuals will be suspected as having ordered or organised the attacks within the meaning of Article 103(1) of the Criminal Code ("ordered, incited or organised").
Under Article 7 of the Criminal Code, persons are liable under the Lithuanian Code regardless of their nationality and place of residence, as well as the place where the crime was committed, when they commit crimes against humanity and war crimes (Articles 99–113¹).
Article 9(4) of the Criminal Code provides that persons who have been granted asylum or temporary protection are punished and extradited to foreign states for the crimes provided for in Article 7.
The UN experts' finding that Russia's attacks against Ukraine's energy infrastructure constitute crimes against humanity assigns these acts to a category for which the Lithuanian Criminal Code establishes universal jurisdiction — liability regardless of nationality, residence, or place of commission. The specific legal question framed by this finding is whether, and under what conditions, persons responsible for these attacks may be held criminally liable in Lithuania; this is resolved under Article 7 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which classifies crimes against humanity and war crimes (Articles 99–113¹) as acts for which liability is provided on the basis of international treaties. An exception to the principle of non-retroactivity of law also applies to this category: Article 3(3) of the Criminal Code permits retroactive application of the law specifically with respect to genocide (Art. 99), killing of protected persons (Art. 101), deportation of civilians (Art. 102), torture (Art. 103), destruction of protected objects (Art. 106), aggression (Art. 110), prohibited attack (Art. 111), and use of prohibited means of warfare (Art. 112). Thus, in the Lithuanian legal system, such acts are not shielded by the protection of prior law — criminal prosecution is possible even for acts committed before the relevant provisions entered into force.
When applying Article 7 of the Criminal Code, the basis of liability does not change depending on whether the act is criminal under the law of the place of commission, which means that, in theory, the Lithuanian prosecution service may open a pre-trial investigation into crimes against humanity committed abroad without any territorial or nationality link. Article 6 of the Criminal Code is inapplicable as a basis in this case, as it establishes liability for foreigners for acts committed abroad only for crimes against the Lithuanian state (Articles 114–128); therefore, the only proper basis is the universal jurisdiction under Article 7. Article 9(4) of the Criminal Code confirms the special status of this category: persons granted asylum or temporary protection in Lithuania may still be punished and extradited for crimes against humanity under Article 7, even though they are protected against prosecution for other acts. The convicted person could be subject not only to principal penalties but also to measures of criminal impact: confiscation of property under Article 72 of the Criminal Code, including confiscation of property belonging to a third party where that party knew of its intended use for prohibited activity or where the property was transferred under a sham transaction or to an offender's family member (Art. 72(4)), as well as compensation for damages under Article 69 of the Criminal Code within a period not exceeding three years.
The practical consequences for persons suspected of these crimes are several: possible arrest and criminal prosecution in Lithuania as soon as they come within Lithuanian jurisdiction; confiscation of assets located in Lithuania under Article 72 of the Criminal Code; and compensation for damages under Article 69 of the Criminal Code. If a legal entity were held liable, Article 43 of the Criminal Code would allow imposition of a fine, restriction of activity, or liquidation, and Article 67(5) would additionally allow prohibition from participating in public procurement, receiving aid, subsidies, or grants, and from reorganisation; only one penalty may be imposed for a single act (Art. 43(3)). For a natural person, Article 68¹ of the Criminal Code would allow deprivation of the right to hold certain employment or engage in certain activities for one to five years, and, for grave and severe crimes under Chapter XXXIII, for three to seven years. For such persons, the immunity from extradition afforded by asylum or temporary protection does not apply either (Art. 9(4) of the Criminal Code), so suspects living in Lithuania or granted asylum remain liable to prosecution and extradition. The UN experts' finding is of a recommendatory nature and does not by itself trigger Lithuanian proceedings — it remains to be seen whether the Prosecutor General's Office will announce the opening of a pre-trial investigation under Article 7 of the Criminal Code.
Under Article 13-1 of the Law on International Sanctions, a violation of sanctions is the conclusion or continuation of transactions with a third state or entities controlled by it, where such conduct is prohibited by sanctions implemented in Lithuania.
International sanctions established by EU legal acts are implemented in Lithuania in full (Article 6(1)), and all natural and legal persons are obliged to observe them (Article 4(1)).
The visit of Slovak Minister J. Blanár to Moscow and the reactivation of the bilateral economic commission are, in essence, a political rather than a legal issue: as an EU Member State, Slovakia remains bound to implement all EU restrictive measures against Russia, and cooperation "in areas not subject to sanctions" is not, in itself, a violation of sanctions. The real legal question arising from this news is as follows: where does permissible economic diplomatic cooperation with Russia by a member of an EU Member State's government end, and where does a violation of international sanctions begin. In the Lithuanian context, this boundary is set out in Article 13-1 of the Law on International Sanctions of the Republic of Lithuania, which recognises as a violation of sanctions, inter alia, the conclusion or continuation of transactions with a third state or entities controlled by it (Article 13-1(3)), the import, export, transit of goods and the provision of related services where a prohibition has been established (paragraph 4), and the provision of financial services where such a prohibition is in force (paragraph 5). An important condition: liability arises only where the specific conduct is prohibited or restricted by sanctions implemented in Lithuania — therefore a commission meeting or a meeting with S. Lavrov, provided it does not extend to prohibited transactions, is not a violation under these provisions.
Under Article 4(1) of the Law on International Sanctions, all natural and legal persons must observe and implement international sanctions in Lithuania, and Article 4(2) obliges them to refrain from any actions by which the restrictions established by sanctions would be circumvented. Sanctions established by EU legal acts are implemented in Lithuania in full (Article 6(1)) — the resumption of the commission's work is legally tolerable only for as long as specific transactions do not fall within the prohibited categories of goods, services or financial activities under Article 13-1. The institutional dimension in Lithuania is set out in Article 11: competent authorities adopt decisions under sanctions legislation, decide on exemptions or permits not to apply restrictions, and respond to enquiries from natural and legal persons. If members of the Slovak delegation or their business partners were to pursue transactions prohibited by EU acts, analogous transactions would be prohibited conduct for Lithuanian entities under Article 13-1, irrespective of the fact that the "form" of cooperation — a governmental commission — appears lawful. Attention should also be drawn to the fact that Article 3-1(5) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Imposition of Restrictive Measures in Response to Military Aggression against Ukraine provides for the possibility of including in the lists persons associated with Russian or Belarusian entities that support the aggression or harm Lithuania's security through hybrid activities — this demonstrates that state-level "dialogue" may have links to listing mechanisms if it is grounded not in economics but in support for a policy of aggression.
For the Slovak minister and his delegation, genuine legal risk arises only when the outcomes of the commission's work translate into specific transactions with entities subject to sanctions or in prohibited goods — in that case, questions of liability would arise under the relevant EU restrictive measures acts and national implementing provisions. For Lithuanian entities contemplating similar cooperation with Russia, the practical consequences under the cited sources would be as follows:
Correction. The news report states that "for criminal liability to arise, a public statement of an insulting, demeaning nature alone is not sufficient", but this contradicts the wording of Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code, under which punishment is imposed already for public mockery or demeaning treatment of a group of persons, without proof of separate incitement to hatred. A more accurate formulation would be: it is not the provision itself that requires an additional element, but rather the courts' practice (as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Lithuania) that interprets the provision narrowly — requiring the establishment of an additional element of dangerousness, namely the intent to influence third persons. It is also worth distinguishing that, in reaching its negative acquittal conclusion, the court additionally examined an expert from the Inspector of Journalists' Ethics Service — this is a matter of evidence, not of the application of the provision. It should also be noted that the news report does not specify which article of the Criminal Code the charge of provoking riots was based on, while the confiscation is based on Article 72(3) of the Criminal Code, under which property belonging to the offender that is subject to confiscation is confiscated in all cases.
I. Gajauskaitė remains convicted of attempted provocation of a riot, but her legal position is defined by three distinct criminal law regimes: conviction with a suspended sentence, acquittal, and release from liability. The principal legal question is whether a 33-minute video recording inciting violence against participants in election debates constitutes the elements of Article 283(1) of the Criminal Code (riots) at the attempt stage, and what penalties are imposed for such conduct. The second question is whether a public, contemptuous statement about people of Jewish ethnicity satisfies the elements of Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code where there is no direct or indirect incitement to hatred or discrimination. The third is whether violence against a close relative without impairment of health may be recognised as an offence of minor significance under Article 37 of the Criminal Code. As no aggravating circumstances were established with respect to any of the charges, the objectives of the penalty were found to be achievable without isolating the convicted person from society.
As regards the riot charge, the panel of judges applied Article 283(1) of the Criminal Code, under which the organisation or provocation of riots is punishable by arrest or imprisonment for up to five years. Since the act was not completed, the attempt rules of Article 22(3) of the Criminal Code were applied — the person is held liable under that Article, and the penalty may be mitigated pursuant to Article 62 of the Criminal Code. The grounds for sentencing were assessed under Article 54(2) of the Criminal Code: regard was had to the degree of dangerousness of the act, the form of guilt, motives, the stage of the offence and the offender's personality, and, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, pursuant to Article 54(3) of the Criminal Code, execution of the sentence imposed was suspended for one year. The penalty of 40 days' arrest imposed falls within the limits of Article 49(3) of the Criminal Code — for a misdemeanour, arrest is set at between 15 and 90 days, and the 75 days' arrest imposed at first instance in respect of the other charges was quashed. As regards the public contempt of Jewish people in the recording of 10 November 2024, the court applied Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code but acquitted: a public statement of an insulting, contemptuous nature alone is insufficient where there is no specific direct or indirect incitement to hatred or discrimination capable of creating a real threat to the object protected by law. The court relied on the most recent case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, under which an additional element of dangerousness must be established — the person's intent to directly or indirectly influence third parties; this conclusion was confirmed after further examination of an expert from the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics. As regards the violence against her brother, Article 140(2) of the Criminal Code was applied (infliction of physical pain on a close relative, sanction — imprisonment for up to two years), but she was released from liability under Article 37 of the Criminal Code: the acts were not intense, there was no impairment of health, the pain was not long-lasting, and there are no residual effects. The case was terminated on this charge, which is not an acquittal — the enforceable judgment records that the act was committed but that no liability was applied. The question of confiscation is resolved under Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code: property subject to confiscation is an instrument or means of a prohibited act, and such property belonging to the offender is confiscated in all cases (para. 3) — the computer and mobile phone confiscated by the court of first instance were used to publish the recording of 8 October 2024.
Practical consequences for the convicted person:
The judgment of the Regional Court may, within the statutory time limit, be appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Lithuania by way of cassation.