Quality of Democracy
#10Key Findings
With free and fair electoral procedures, Lithuania receives a high overall ranking (rank 10) with regard to democracy quality. Its score on this measure has declined by 0.1 point relative to its 2014 level.
Campaign-finance laws have been tightened, with stricter penalties for illegally obtained funds, new limits on cash funding, and tighter limits on expenditures and advertising. State funding provides the largest share of party revenue. Early voting was extended and drive-through voting implemented during a pandemic-era parliamentary election.
Gaining access to government information and data has been problematic. Court rulings have extended journalists’ right to access non-classified information. Media-ownership concentration has increased over the last several years. The state provided financial assistance to the media during the pandemic, but this was not distributed “fairly and transparently.”
Civil rights are officially protected, but the migrant crisis at the Belarus border led to accusations of human rights abuses. Protest frequency increased in 2021, with large gatherings opposing vaccination policies and same-sex partnerships. Courts have upheld the right to hold LGBTQ+ events over prominent politicians’ objections. Corruption remains a concern.
Campaign-finance laws have been tightened, with stricter penalties for illegally obtained funds, new limits on cash funding, and tighter limits on expenditures and advertising. State funding provides the largest share of party revenue. Early voting was extended and drive-through voting implemented during a pandemic-era parliamentary election.
Gaining access to government information and data has been problematic. Court rulings have extended journalists’ right to access non-classified information. Media-ownership concentration has increased over the last several years. The state provided financial assistance to the media during the pandemic, but this was not distributed “fairly and transparently.”
Civil rights are officially protected, but the migrant crisis at the Belarus border led to accusations of human rights abuses. Protest frequency increased in 2021, with large gatherings opposing vaccination policies and same-sex partnerships. Courts have upheld the right to hold LGBTQ+ events over prominent politicians’ objections. Corruption remains a concern.
How fair are procedures for registering candidates and parties?
10
9
9
Legal regulations provide for a fair registration procedure for all elections; candidates and parties are not discriminated against.
8
7
6
7
6
A few restrictions on election procedures discriminate against a small number of candidates and parties.
5
4
3
4
3
Some unreasonable restrictions on election procedures exist that discriminate against many candidates and parties.
2
1
1
Discriminating registration procedures for elections are widespread and prevent a large number of potential candidates or parties from participating.
Lithuania’s regulations provide for a fair registration procedure for all elections. In general, neither individual candidates nor parties are discriminated against. Minimal requirements for establishing a political party and registering candidacies produced a large number of candidates, and a broad choice of political alternatives in the 2016 and 2020 parliamentary elections as well as the 2019 presidential elections. Independent candidates as well as party-affiliated candidates can stand for election. The so-called public electoral committees, which can take part in the elections and compete with political parties, but face less demanding requirements for registration, can participate in the municipal and European Parliament elections.
However, a few provisions should be noted. The provision that “any citizen…who is not bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state…may be elected” does not conform to the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on dual citizenship. The court also ruled that the lifetime ban on standing for elected office on impeached former President Rolandas Paksas was disproportionate. However, this ban has not been lifted, as votes in 2015 and 2018 in the Lithuanian parliament on his electoral eligibility failed. As a consequence, Paksas was unable to run in the 2016 parliamentary elections or the 2019 presidential elections. In 2021, the parliament agreed to consider changes to the constitution that would allow for an impeached person to run for a parliamentary seat after 10 years. Following the 2019 presidential elections, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) suggested removing restrictions barring people with dual citizenship from standing as candidates.
In response to an inquiry initiated by a group of parliamentarians, the Constitutional Court ruled that the territorial boundaries of single-candidate constituencies should be redrawn to reduce population differences that had developed over time due to demographic changes and migration from the provinces to the capital. The decision of the Constitutional Court was implemented in December 2015, when the new constituencies were announced. One major change involved the establishment of two additional constituencies in Vilnius, where the number of voters has been constantly increasing.
Due to demographic changes, in 2019, two additional constituencies were established – one in Vilnius and one for Lithuanians living abroad – and two rural constituencies were abolished. The decision to allow electoral committees to stand in municipal elections was a hotly debated issue during the 2015 and 2019 elections, as these committees are not regulated as tightly as political parties, and critics say their existence has contributed to the further decline of the already weak political parties.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
ECHR judgment of Jan. 6 of 2011 on Case of Paksas v. Lithuania, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102617#“itemid”:[“001-102617”].
However, a few provisions should be noted. The provision that “any citizen…who is not bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state…may be elected” does not conform to the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on dual citizenship. The court also ruled that the lifetime ban on standing for elected office on impeached former President Rolandas Paksas was disproportionate. However, this ban has not been lifted, as votes in 2015 and 2018 in the Lithuanian parliament on his electoral eligibility failed. As a consequence, Paksas was unable to run in the 2016 parliamentary elections or the 2019 presidential elections. In 2021, the parliament agreed to consider changes to the constitution that would allow for an impeached person to run for a parliamentary seat after 10 years. Following the 2019 presidential elections, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) suggested removing restrictions barring people with dual citizenship from standing as candidates.
In response to an inquiry initiated by a group of parliamentarians, the Constitutional Court ruled that the territorial boundaries of single-candidate constituencies should be redrawn to reduce population differences that had developed over time due to demographic changes and migration from the provinces to the capital. The decision of the Constitutional Court was implemented in December 2015, when the new constituencies were announced. One major change involved the establishment of two additional constituencies in Vilnius, where the number of voters has been constantly increasing.
Due to demographic changes, in 2019, two additional constituencies were established – one in Vilnius and one for Lithuanians living abroad – and two rural constituencies were abolished. The decision to allow electoral committees to stand in municipal elections was a hotly debated issue during the 2015 and 2019 elections, as these committees are not regulated as tightly as political parties, and critics say their existence has contributed to the further decline of the already weak political parties.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
ECHR judgment of Jan. 6 of 2011 on Case of Paksas v. Lithuania, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102617#“itemid”:[“001-102617”].
To what extent do candidates and parties have fair access to the media and other means of communication?
10
9
9
All candidates and parties have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. All major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Candidates and parties have largely equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. The major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of different political positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Candidates and parties often do not have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. While the major media outlets represent a partisan political bias, the media system as a whole provides fair coverage of different political positions.
2
1
1
Candidates and parties lack equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communications. The major media outlets are biased in favor of certain political groups or views and discriminate against others.
The publicly owned media are obliged to provide equal access to all political parties and coalitions. Debate programs on the state-funded Lithuanian Radio and Television are financed by the Central Electoral Commission. The media are also obliged to offer all campaigns the same terms when selling air time for paid campaign advertisements.
Newly introduced restrictions on political advertising, as well as restrictions on corporate donations to political parties, reduced the ability of the most-well-financed parties to dominate the airwaves in the run-up to the elections. Privately owned media organizations are not obliged to provide equal access to all political parties.
According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Lithuania’s media environment in general demonstrated ample plurality of opinion during the 2016 and the 2020 parliamentary elections, with the freedom of expression generally respected. However, in its 2020 election report, the organization noted that “(a)lthough the public broadcaster organized candidate debates, their format did not allow for any substantial discussion that would help voters to make an informed judgment.”
The OSCE similarly concluded that the “media provided extensive coverage, which enabled citizens to make an informed choice” after the country’s 2019 presidential elections. At the same time, the OSCE recommended reviewing the rules governing media conduct during electoral campaigns, with the aim of clearly distinguishing paid political advertising from other forms of campaign coverage. Currently, the vague definition of political advertising leaves space for arbitrary decisions, the organization indicated.
One of the rare recent controversies had to do with attempts in 2018 by the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Party, which was then in government, to change the oversight of the state-funded Lithuanian Radio and Television. This was viewed by many analysts as an attempt to politicize its activities and influence the content of broadcasting (see also “Media Freedom”).
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
Newly introduced restrictions on political advertising, as well as restrictions on corporate donations to political parties, reduced the ability of the most-well-financed parties to dominate the airwaves in the run-up to the elections. Privately owned media organizations are not obliged to provide equal access to all political parties.
According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Lithuania’s media environment in general demonstrated ample plurality of opinion during the 2016 and the 2020 parliamentary elections, with the freedom of expression generally respected. However, in its 2020 election report, the organization noted that “(a)lthough the public broadcaster organized candidate debates, their format did not allow for any substantial discussion that would help voters to make an informed judgment.”
The OSCE similarly concluded that the “media provided extensive coverage, which enabled citizens to make an informed choice” after the country’s 2019 presidential elections. At the same time, the OSCE recommended reviewing the rules governing media conduct during electoral campaigns, with the aim of clearly distinguishing paid political advertising from other forms of campaign coverage. Currently, the vague definition of political advertising leaves space for arbitrary decisions, the organization indicated.
One of the rare recent controversies had to do with attempts in 2018 by the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Party, which was then in government, to change the oversight of the state-funded Lithuanian Radio and Television. This was viewed by many analysts as an attempt to politicize its activities and influence the content of broadcasting (see also “Media Freedom”).
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
To what extent do all citizens have the opportunity to exercise their right of participation in national elections?
10
9
9
All adult citizens can participate in national elections. All eligible voters are registered if they wish to be. There are no discriminations observable in the exercise of the right to vote. There are no disincentives to voting.
8
7
6
7
6
The procedures for the registration of voters and voting are for the most part effective, impartial and nondiscriminatory. Citizens can appeal to courts if they feel being discriminated. Disincentives to voting generally do not constitute genuine obstacles.
5
4
3
4
3
While the procedures for the registration of voters and voting are de jure non-discriminatory, isolated cases of discrimination occur in practice. For some citizens, disincentives to voting constitute significant obstacles.
2
1
1
The procedures for the registration of voters or voting have systemic discriminatory effects. De facto, a substantial number of adult citizens are excluded from national elections.
All citizens who are over the age of 18 on election day are eligible to vote. Citizens living abroad may vote if they preregister. Several proposals for the introduction of internet-based voting have been rejected by the parliament, although this issue continues to reappear on the political agenda. Votes can be cast in person on election day, but provisions are also made for early voting, out-of-country voting, voting in special institutions and voting for those who are homebound. There are no specific disincentives to voting, although the absence of internet voting capabilities may limit participation rates for citizens living abroad, as overseas voting must be done in person in diplomatic missions that are usually located in the capitals or other major cities of foreign countries. After the 2016 parliamentary elections, alleged cases of vote-buying in rural electoral districts emerged, leading to police investigations and the removal of one elected member of parliament from the party list. No such major cases of suspected vote-buying came to light during the 2019 municipal, presidential or European parliament elections, or the 2020 parliamentary elections. The parliamentary elections in autumn 2020 took place amid the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A longer period of early voting was allowed, with more polling stations established, and social distancing measures and drive-through voting for voters in self-isolation were enacted during the voting on election day. As observed by the OSCE, voters were afforded ample opportunities to cast ballots.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
To what extent is private and public party financing and electoral campaign financing transparent, effectively monitored and in case of infringement of rules subject to proportionate and dissuasive sanction?
10
9
9
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring to that respect. Effective measures to prevent evasion are effectively in place and infringements subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
8
7
6
7
6
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring. Although infringements are subject to proportionate sanctions, some, although few, loopholes and options for circumvention still exist.
5
4
3
4
3
The state provides that donations to political parties shall be published. Party financing is subject to some degree of independent monitoring but monitoring either proves regularly ineffective or proportionate sanctions in case of infringement do not follow.
2
1
1
The rules for party and campaign financing do not effectively enforce the obligation to make the donations public. Party and campaign financing is neither monitored independently nor, in case of infringements, subject to proportionate sanctions.
Political parties may receive financial support from the state budget, membership fees, bank loans, interest on party funds and through citizens’ donations of up to 1% of their personal-income tax, as well as through income derived from the management of property; the organization of political, cultural and other events; and the distribution of printed material. State budget allocations constitute the largest portion of political parties’ income, as corporations are no longer allowed to make donations to political parties or to election campaigns. Attempts by the ruling parliamentary majority in 2018 to change state budget allocation rules to secure funding for the newly established Lithuanian Social Democratic and Labor party, part of the ruling parliamentary coalition, failed after the president vetoed the parliament’s effort to borrow additional funds.
Following the 2016 parliamentary elections, the OSCE suggested clarifying the term “third parties” for campaign-finance purposes, and extending regulations affecting donations, expenditure limits and reporting requirements to cover these groups. For instance, the Lithuanian Central Electoral Commission found the Liberal Movement guilty of gross violations of the law on campaign financing because of a financial donation received from a third party during the electoral campaign. Furthermore, implementation of the rules should be more closely monitored and enforced. For example, the Labor party, part of the 2012 to 2016 coalition government, was taken to court for failing to make public about €7 million in income and expenditure through the 2004 to 2006 period. After several years examining the case, the appeals court found two party members and one party official guilty of fraudulent bookkeeping, though they escaped prison sentences. The Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office has appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. Also, in November 2018, the Central Electoral Commission ruled that the Lithuanian Social Democratic party had seriously violated campaign-finance regulations by exceeding spending limit for political advertising during the 2016 parliamentary elections. As a penalty, regulators imposed a six-month suspension funding suspension on the party.
In 2020, several amendments were made to the regulation of political parties’ financing. These included stricter sanctions in cases illegally attained funds, new limits on cash funding, and stricter controls on political campaign expenditures and advertising.
In its report on the 2020 parliamentary elections, the OSCE noted that Lithuania has taken into account some earlier recommendations (related to sanctions and expenditure reporting before elections), but that other recommendations have not been implemented, in particular those related to third-party campaigning and raising the monetary threshold for donations that must be declared.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
Following the 2016 parliamentary elections, the OSCE suggested clarifying the term “third parties” for campaign-finance purposes, and extending regulations affecting donations, expenditure limits and reporting requirements to cover these groups. For instance, the Lithuanian Central Electoral Commission found the Liberal Movement guilty of gross violations of the law on campaign financing because of a financial donation received from a third party during the electoral campaign. Furthermore, implementation of the rules should be more closely monitored and enforced. For example, the Labor party, part of the 2012 to 2016 coalition government, was taken to court for failing to make public about €7 million in income and expenditure through the 2004 to 2006 period. After several years examining the case, the appeals court found two party members and one party official guilty of fraudulent bookkeeping, though they escaped prison sentences. The Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office has appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. Also, in November 2018, the Central Electoral Commission ruled that the Lithuanian Social Democratic party had seriously violated campaign-finance regulations by exceeding spending limit for political advertising during the 2016 parliamentary elections. As a penalty, regulators imposed a six-month suspension funding suspension on the party.
In 2020, several amendments were made to the regulation of political parties’ financing. These included stricter sanctions in cases illegally attained funds, new limits on cash funding, and stricter controls on political campaign expenditures and advertising.
In its report on the 2020 parliamentary elections, the OSCE noted that Lithuania has taken into account some earlier recommendations (related to sanctions and expenditure reporting before elections), but that other recommendations have not been implemented, in particular those related to third-party campaigning and raising the monetary threshold for donations that must be declared.
Citations:
OSCE/ODIHR Lithuania, Parliamentary Elections, 11 and 25 October 2020: Final Report, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/477730
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on the 2019 presidential election in Lithuania, see https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/433352?download=true
OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report on the 2016 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/lithuania/296446.
Do citizens have the opportunity to take binding political decisions when they want to do so?
10
9
9
Citizens have the effective opportunity to actively propose and take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through popular initiatives and referendums. The set of eligible issues is extensive, and includes national, regional, and local issues.
8
7
6
7
6
Citizens have the effective opportunity to take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through either popular initiatives or referendums. The set of eligible issues covers at least two levels of government.
5
4
3
4
3
Citizens have the effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure. The set of eligible issues is limited to one level of government.
2
1
1
Citizens have no effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure.
Lithuanian citizens can propose policies and make binding decisions on issues of importance to them through referendums and petitions. Since the reestablishment of Lithuania’s independence in 1990, there have been 14 referendums, although only five of these have been successful in terms of attracting sufficient number of voters (including the 2004 referendum approving Lithuania’s membership in the European Union and the 2012 consultative (advisory) referendum on the construction of a new nuclear power plant). A referendum to amend the constitution to introduce dual citizenship was held in conjunction with the 2019 presidential elections, but this failed to attract the number of votes necessary to change the constitution. Today, to call a referendum, a total of 300,000 signatures of Lithuanian citizens with the right to vote must be collected within three months. For the referendum to be valid, more than one-half of all voters must participate. Citizens also have the right to propose a legislative initiative (by collecting 50,000 signatures within two months) that, if successful, must be addressed in parliament. Only three citizens’ initiatives secured the necessary signatures to be debated during the 2012 to 2016 parliament. One initiative proposed to control alcohol consumption, a second proposed a ban on use of electricity supplied from the newly built nuclear power plant in Belarus, and the third was related to the use of foreign-language characters in official documents. No initiatives have been attempted since 2016. A right to petition also exists, giving individuals the ability to address the parliament’s Petition Commission.
To what extent are the media independent from government?
10
9
9
Public and private media are independent from government influence; their independence is institutionally protected and fully respected by the incumbent government.
8
7
6
7
6
The incumbent government largely respects the independence of media. However, there are occasional attempts to exert influence.
5
4
3
4
3
The incumbent government seeks to ensure its political objectives indirectly by influencing the personnel policies, organizational framework or financial resources of public media, and/or the licensing regime/market access for private media.
2
1
1
Major media outlets are frequently influenced by the incumbent government promoting its partisan political objectives. To ensure pro-government media reporting, governmental actors exert direct political pressure and violate existing rules of media regulation or change them to benefit their interests.
Lithuania’s media is not subject to government influence. Private newspapers and independent broadcasters express a wide variety of views and freely criticize the government. Though the media’s independence is generally respected by the incumbent government, there have been a few recent attempts to restrict media freedom.
In Reporters Without Borders’ 2021 Press Freedom Index, Lithuania was ranked 28th out of 180 countries on the issue of press freedom, an increase of two positions compared to 2019. Despite this generally positive situation, court decisions and prosecutors’ orders are sometimes a threat to media independence. The parliament is alleged to have meddled in the operations of the public broadcasting service, Lithuanian Radio and Television, by setting up a special parliamentary inquiry commission to investigate the activities of the broadcaster. The commission found ineffective and opaque operations and suggested changes to the governance of the state-funded Lithuanian Radio and Television that could politicize appointments to its Council and a new Board whose establishment was proposed in the recommendations. The conclusions of the committee were not approved by the parliament during its plenary vote in November 2018, but new legislative proposals were later introduced to implement them. In September 2018, Lithuanian authorities discontinued the practice of providing free data from the Center of Registers for requests from journalists, but this decision was later reversed after reporters appealed to government officials. In addition, media independence could be compromised as the government remains a key advertiser, and that a large proportion of media outlets are owned by a small number of domestic and foreign companies. Similarly, regional media is dependent on local government for advertising and other types of support, which might restrict their ability to criticize local government.
With the aim of combating hostile propaganda and disinformation, the Lithuanian authorities introduced modifications to the Public Information Law that impose a penalty of up to 3% of a broadcaster’s annual income for spreading information that is deemed war propaganda, encouragement to change the country’s constitutional order, or an encroachment on the country’s sovereignty. This national security decision restricted the broadcasts and rebroadcasts of some Russian TV channels in Lithuania. In March 2015, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court issued a three-month ban on broadcasts by two Russian television channels that violated Lithuanian broadcasting regulations. The European Commission backed the Lithuanian authorities.
In 2020, the courts ruled in favor of journalists’ rights to access information in an important case. The Skvernelis government had refused to provide information about a government meeting, and had deleted the recordings. “This set a very important precedent, giving journalists right of access to all non-classified information,” wrote Reporters Without Borders about the case.
During the pandemic, the state provided financial assistance to the media, but according to Reporters Without Borders, this aid “was not distributed fairly and transparently.” In addition, the group said, “hospitals, municipal councils, courts and other state institutions restricted journalists’ access to information” during the pandemic.
Citations:
2021 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX, see https://rsf.org/en/lithuania
In Reporters Without Borders’ 2021 Press Freedom Index, Lithuania was ranked 28th out of 180 countries on the issue of press freedom, an increase of two positions compared to 2019. Despite this generally positive situation, court decisions and prosecutors’ orders are sometimes a threat to media independence. The parliament is alleged to have meddled in the operations of the public broadcasting service, Lithuanian Radio and Television, by setting up a special parliamentary inquiry commission to investigate the activities of the broadcaster. The commission found ineffective and opaque operations and suggested changes to the governance of the state-funded Lithuanian Radio and Television that could politicize appointments to its Council and a new Board whose establishment was proposed in the recommendations. The conclusions of the committee were not approved by the parliament during its plenary vote in November 2018, but new legislative proposals were later introduced to implement them. In September 2018, Lithuanian authorities discontinued the practice of providing free data from the Center of Registers for requests from journalists, but this decision was later reversed after reporters appealed to government officials. In addition, media independence could be compromised as the government remains a key advertiser, and that a large proportion of media outlets are owned by a small number of domestic and foreign companies. Similarly, regional media is dependent on local government for advertising and other types of support, which might restrict their ability to criticize local government.
With the aim of combating hostile propaganda and disinformation, the Lithuanian authorities introduced modifications to the Public Information Law that impose a penalty of up to 3% of a broadcaster’s annual income for spreading information that is deemed war propaganda, encouragement to change the country’s constitutional order, or an encroachment on the country’s sovereignty. This national security decision restricted the broadcasts and rebroadcasts of some Russian TV channels in Lithuania. In March 2015, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court issued a three-month ban on broadcasts by two Russian television channels that violated Lithuanian broadcasting regulations. The European Commission backed the Lithuanian authorities.
In 2020, the courts ruled in favor of journalists’ rights to access information in an important case. The Skvernelis government had refused to provide information about a government meeting, and had deleted the recordings. “This set a very important precedent, giving journalists right of access to all non-classified information,” wrote Reporters Without Borders about the case.
During the pandemic, the state provided financial assistance to the media, but according to Reporters Without Borders, this aid “was not distributed fairly and transparently.” In addition, the group said, “hospitals, municipal councils, courts and other state institutions restricted journalists’ access to information” during the pandemic.
Citations:
2021 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX, see https://rsf.org/en/lithuania
To what extent are the media characterized by an ownership structure that ensures a pluralism of opinions?
10
9
9
Diversified ownership structures characterize both the electronic and print media market, providing a well-balanced pluralism of opinions. Effective anti-monopoly policies and impartial, open public media guarantee a pluralism of opinions.
8
7
6
7
6
Diversified ownership structures prevail in the electronic and print media market. Public media compensate for deficiencies or biases in private media reporting by representing a wider range of opinions.
5
4
3
4
3
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize either the electronic or the print media market. Important opinions are represented but there are no or only weak institutional guarantees against the predominance of certain opinions.
2
1
1
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize both the electronic and the print media market. Few companies dominate the media, most programs are biased, and there is evidence that certain opinions are not published or are marginalized.
Lithuania’s electronic and print media markets are characterized by a mix of diversified and oligopolistic ownership structures. Ownership structures are not transparent. Publicly owned electronic media (the state-funded National Radio and Television) to some extent compensate for deficiencies or biases in private sector media reporting. According to Transparency International (the Vilnius office), some media entities are more transparent than others. In 2014, the Journalists’ and Publishers’ Ethics Commission criticized print publications Respublika and Lietuvos rytas for failing to comply with professional ethics in publishing public information; however, these media companies have continued to show serious, regular violations of professional ethics, without being penalized. In some cases, business conglomerates own multiple newspapers and TV channels. Media-ownership concentration has been increasing over the last several years due to the purchase of media outlets by domestic and foreign companies. Five groups of media companies (Delfi, 15min, Lietuvos rytas, Verslo žinios and Alfa) dominate the media market. In addition, although state and municipal institutions cannot legally act as producers, the Druskininkai municipality finances a newspaper that is freely distributed to locals by working through an educational organization. In 2014, the Vilnius district court ruled that the Druskininkai municipality broke the law by publishing this newspaper. Between 2015 and 2016, other news of ruling municipal politicians limiting the independent reporting of regional media or close connections between ruling parties and regional media outlets surfaced, evidencing that on the municipal level pluralism of opinions is limited. According to Transparency International’s Vilnius office, about 25 Lithuanian politicians and civil servants have stakes in the country’s media companies. Ramūnas Karbauskis, the co-leader of the ruling Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union, sold his shares in the newspaper Ūkininko patarėjas. In its 2020 report, Freedom House noted growing risks to media freedom due to increasing ownership concentration, which often leads to self-censorship on the part of journalists and editors. Furthermore, the group pointed out the detrimental effects of the pandemic’s economic effects, as well as the danger of potential restrictions on media freedom due to “a vaguely worded law restricting the dissemination of information that ‘abases family values.’” Freedom House consequently lowered Lithuania’s score on the freedom of expression and belief.
The population shows relatively low levels of trust in the media, with only 25% of respondents indicating that they trust media organizations, and 34% stating that they do not, according to a December 2021 survey by Vilmorus. This represented a significant deterioration since 2019.
Citations:
See information by the Journalists‘ and Publishers‘ Ethics Commission http://www.lzlek.lt/index.php?lang=1&sid=371&tid=400
Vilmorus survey:
http://www.vilmorus.lt/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=2&cntnt01returnid=20
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2021, Lithuania, file:///C:/Users/Vytautas/Desktop/SGI/Lithuania_%20Freedom%20in%20the%20World%202021%20Country%20Report%20_%20Freedom%20House.pdf
The population shows relatively low levels of trust in the media, with only 25% of respondents indicating that they trust media organizations, and 34% stating that they do not, according to a December 2021 survey by Vilmorus. This represented a significant deterioration since 2019.
Citations:
See information by the Journalists‘ and Publishers‘ Ethics Commission http://www.lzlek.lt/index.php?lang=1&sid=371&tid=400
Vilmorus survey:
http://www.vilmorus.lt/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=2&cntnt01returnid=20
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2021, Lithuania, file:///C:/Users/Vytautas/Desktop/SGI/Lithuania_%20Freedom%20in%20the%20World%202021%20Country%20Report%20_%20Freedom%20House.pdf
To what extent can citizens obtain official information?
10
9
9
Legal regulations guarantee free and easy access to official information, contain few, reasonable restrictions, and there are effective mechanisms of appeal and oversight enabling citizens to access information.
8
7
6
7
6
Access to official information is regulated by law. Most restrictions are justified, but access is sometimes complicated by bureaucratic procedures. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms permit citizens to enforce their right of access.
5
4
3
4
3
Access to official information is partially regulated by law, but complicated by bureaucratic procedures and some poorly justified restrictions. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms are often ineffective.
2
1
1
Access to official information is not regulated by law; there are many restrictions of access, bureaucratic procedures and no or ineffective mechanisms of enforcement.
The principle of freedom of information is upheld in Lithuania’s constitution and legislation. For instance, the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public states that, “Every individual shall have the right to obtain from state and local authority institutions and agencies and other budgetary institutions public information regarding their activities, their official documents (copies), as well as private information about himself.” Appeals can be made to an internal Appeals Dispute Commission and to administrative courts. Legal measures with regard to access to government information are adequate, and do not create any access barriers to citizens; however, citizens often fail to take advantage of their right to use this information.
Information-access provisions in Lithuania apply to all levels of the executive, yet exclude the legislative branch. The right to request information is held by citizens of and legal residents within Lithuania and European Economic Area states, as well as foreign nationals with a residence permit (in contrast to most OECD countries, where there are no such legal restrictions concerning the status of participants). Following a complaint by 10 media organizations to the parliamentary Ombudsman regarding difficulties in accessing information, the Ombudsman issued a recommendation to the Ministry of Culture asking that journalists’ right to acquire information be promptly respected. The OECD has recommended helping the country’s civil service better understand the added value associated with access to information.
OECD data shows that in comparative terms, Lithuania performs very poorly in the area of government data access. In 2019, it was last in the OECD in terms of data availability and government support for reuse, and fifth from the bottom in terms of data accessibility. Its overall index score was also the worst in the OECD, although it did increase very slightly compared to 2017. The conservative-liberal coalition government formed in late 2020 has a number of provisions in its program relating to open data, and has expressed the intention of improving transparency and citizens’ access to data.
Citations:
OECD, Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: 2019, 2020, https://www.oecd.org/countries/lithuania/open-useful-and-re-usable-data-ourdata-index-2019-45f6de2d-en.htm
OECD, Public Governance Review Lithuania- Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making Key Findings and Recommendations. 2015.
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/ogp/2014/02/12/three-cohort-2-countries-will-not-receive-irm-reports.
Information-access provisions in Lithuania apply to all levels of the executive, yet exclude the legislative branch. The right to request information is held by citizens of and legal residents within Lithuania and European Economic Area states, as well as foreign nationals with a residence permit (in contrast to most OECD countries, where there are no such legal restrictions concerning the status of participants). Following a complaint by 10 media organizations to the parliamentary Ombudsman regarding difficulties in accessing information, the Ombudsman issued a recommendation to the Ministry of Culture asking that journalists’ right to acquire information be promptly respected. The OECD has recommended helping the country’s civil service better understand the added value associated with access to information.
OECD data shows that in comparative terms, Lithuania performs very poorly in the area of government data access. In 2019, it was last in the OECD in terms of data availability and government support for reuse, and fifth from the bottom in terms of data accessibility. Its overall index score was also the worst in the OECD, although it did increase very slightly compared to 2017. The conservative-liberal coalition government formed in late 2020 has a number of provisions in its program relating to open data, and has expressed the intention of improving transparency and citizens’ access to data.
Citations:
OECD, Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: 2019, 2020, https://www.oecd.org/countries/lithuania/open-useful-and-re-usable-data-ourdata-index-2019-45f6de2d-en.htm
OECD, Public Governance Review Lithuania- Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making Key Findings and Recommendations. 2015.
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/ogp/2014/02/12/three-cohort-2-countries-will-not-receive-irm-reports.
To what extent does the state respect and protect civil rights and how effectively are citizens protected by courts against infringements of their rights?
10
9
9
All state institutions respect and effectively protect civil rights. Citizens are effectively protected by courts against infringements of their rights. Infringements present an extreme exception.
8
7
6
7
6
The state respects and protects rights, with few infringements. Courts provide protection.
5
4
3
4
3
Despite formal protection, frequent infringements of civil rights occur and court protection often proves ineffective.
2
1
1
State institutions respect civil rights only formally, and civil rights are frequently violated. Court protection is not effective.
It is relatively easy for all residents to gain Lithuanian citizenship, and civil rights are officially protected by the constitution and other legislative provisions. However, there are some problems regarding effective protection of citizens’ rights. According to the U.S. Department of State, Lithuania’s most significant human-rights problems include poor prison conditions, intolerance of sexual and ethnic minorities, and the lengthy detention of people awaiting trial. Additional problems include interference with personal privacy, domestic violence, child abuse, and libel and anti-discrimination laws that limit the freedom of expression. Lithuanian authorities do seek to prosecute or otherwise punish officials who committed abuses, and Lithuanian courts provide legal protection against illegitimate or unjustifiable interventions into personal life. On the Civic Empowerment Index, produced by the Civil Society Institute since 2007, Lithuania scored 41.3 out of 100 in 2020 – a relatively low level, and yet its highest to date. In the 2021 Freedom House report, Lithuania was given a score of 52 out of 60 on the issue of civil liberties.
Lithuanian society shows only an average interest in public affairs, while the social environment remains unfavorable for civic engagement. A total of 18% of the Lithuanian population indicated in 2014 that they had experienced violations of their rights, and again only 18% said they had taken action to protect themselves, indicating an insufficient degree of awareness of human rights.
The migrant crisis has brought difficult challenges for Lithuania. After essentially allowing free entry into Lithuania for migrants entering from Belarus claiming asylum status, the authorities changed their policy and in practice began denying access to migrants by erecting physical barriers and pushing back people who were trying to enter the country. This was done due to the perception that elevated migrant flows were being specifically engineered by Belarusian President Lukashenko as a form of “hybrid warfare,” in a response to Lithuania’s active stance promoting the democratic opposition in Belarus. Furthermore, the sheer number of actual and potential migrants led the authorities to believe that strict action was necessary, as it was feared that the situation would soon become physically unmanageable. At the same time, NGOs and several international organizations expressed concerns about both the strategy and tactics pursued, which in several respects were considered to be in violation of certain international agreements and human rights.
Citations:
Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2011 on Lithuania is available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrp t/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapp er
The Index of Civil Power measured by the Civil Society Institute is available at http://www.civitas.lt/en/research/civic-empowerment-index/
Survey on the situation of human rights in Lithuania, http://www.hrmi.lt/musu-darbai/tyrimai178/visuomenes-nuomones-apklausos/
Freedom House Report on Lithuania 2021, available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
Human Rights Monitoring Institute, REPORT ON ENSURING HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PLACES OF TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF FOREIGNERS HAVING CROSSED THE BORDER OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, https://hrmi.lt/en/report-on-ensuring-human-rights-and-freedoms-in-places-of-tem porary-accommodation-of-foreigners-having-crossed-the-border-of-the-republic-of- lithuania-with-the-republic-of-belarus/
Lithuanian society shows only an average interest in public affairs, while the social environment remains unfavorable for civic engagement. A total of 18% of the Lithuanian population indicated in 2014 that they had experienced violations of their rights, and again only 18% said they had taken action to protect themselves, indicating an insufficient degree of awareness of human rights.
The migrant crisis has brought difficult challenges for Lithuania. After essentially allowing free entry into Lithuania for migrants entering from Belarus claiming asylum status, the authorities changed their policy and in practice began denying access to migrants by erecting physical barriers and pushing back people who were trying to enter the country. This was done due to the perception that elevated migrant flows were being specifically engineered by Belarusian President Lukashenko as a form of “hybrid warfare,” in a response to Lithuania’s active stance promoting the democratic opposition in Belarus. Furthermore, the sheer number of actual and potential migrants led the authorities to believe that strict action was necessary, as it was feared that the situation would soon become physically unmanageable. At the same time, NGOs and several international organizations expressed concerns about both the strategy and tactics pursued, which in several respects were considered to be in violation of certain international agreements and human rights.
Citations:
Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2011 on Lithuania is available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrp t/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapp er
The Index of Civil Power measured by the Civil Society Institute is available at http://www.civitas.lt/en/research/civic-empowerment-index/
Survey on the situation of human rights in Lithuania, http://www.hrmi.lt/musu-darbai/tyrimai178/visuomenes-nuomones-apklausos/
Freedom House Report on Lithuania 2021, available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
Human Rights Monitoring Institute, REPORT ON ENSURING HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PLACES OF TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF FOREIGNERS HAVING CROSSED THE BORDER OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, https://hrmi.lt/en/report-on-ensuring-human-rights-and-freedoms-in-places-of-tem porary-accommodation-of-foreigners-having-crossed-the-border-of-the-republic-of- lithuania-with-the-republic-of-belarus/
To what extent does the state concede and protect political liberties?
10
9
9
All state institutions concede and effectively protect political liberties.
8
7
6
7
6
All state institutions for the most part concede and protect political liberties. There are only few infringements.
5
4
3
4
3
State institutions concede political liberties but infringements occur regularly in practice.
2
1
1
Political liberties are unsatisfactory codified and frequently violated.
Lithuanian institutions generally respect the freedoms of assembly and association. Lithuania obtained a very high score on the issue of political rights (38 out of 40) and a high score on civil freedoms (52 out of 60) in the Freedom of the World Report published by Freedom House. Lithuanian political parties operate freely, with the Communist party being the only banned grouping. Non-governmental organizations may register without serious obstacles, and human-rights groups operate without restrictions. In 2010, an appeals court ruled that Lithuania’s first gay-pride parade could go ahead on the basis of the right to peaceful assembly. This parade (a controversial issue in this majority Roman-Catholic country) was initially banned by a lower court due to concerns over potential violence. Another gay-pride parade was allowed to be held in the center of Vilnius in 2013. The freedom of religion is also largely upheld in practice, but certain government benefits are granted only to traditional religious communities. Workers may form and join trade unions, strike, and engage in collective bargaining, but slightly less than 10% of the country’s workforce is unionized. According to the Freedom House report, “strikes are relatively uncommon due to strict regulations, a lack of strike funds and the absence of a culture of industrial action.” The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to strike can be used only after other measures provided for in the Labor Code have been exhausted. A new labor code that came into force in 2017 provides additional instruments for the organization of strikes.
In 2021, there was a substantial uptick in protest activities. In May of that year, around 15,000 people protested against the country’s vaccination policy and plans to introduce legalize same-sex partnerships. In August, protests against pandemic management policies in front of the parliament turned violent – a policeman was injured, and members of parliament had to be evacuated. The city of Vilnius refused to grant permission to hold several protests in defense of traditional family values and against pandemic policies, citing concerns over public health and safety, but courts overruled these decisions.
In September 2021, an LGBTQ+ march took place in the municipality of Kaunas. Kaunas’ mayor stated that in his opinion, an event of that nature should not take place on the main avenue of the city, but the courts stated that the organizers had the right to organize the march.
Citations:
The 2021 freedom rating of Lithuania by the Freedom House is available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
In 2021, there was a substantial uptick in protest activities. In May of that year, around 15,000 people protested against the country’s vaccination policy and plans to introduce legalize same-sex partnerships. In August, protests against pandemic management policies in front of the parliament turned violent – a policeman was injured, and members of parliament had to be evacuated. The city of Vilnius refused to grant permission to hold several protests in defense of traditional family values and against pandemic policies, citing concerns over public health and safety, but courts overruled these decisions.
In September 2021, an LGBTQ+ march took place in the municipality of Kaunas. Kaunas’ mayor stated that in his opinion, an event of that nature should not take place on the main avenue of the city, but the courts stated that the organizers had the right to organize the march.
Citations:
The 2021 freedom rating of Lithuania by the Freedom House is available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
How effectively does the state protect against different forms of discrimination?
10
9
9
State institutions effectively protect against and actively prevent discrimination. Cases of discrimination are extremely rare.
8
7
6
7
6
State anti-discrimination protections are moderately successful. Few cases of discrimination are observed.
5
4
3
4
3
State anti-discrimination efforts show limited success. Many cases of discrimination can be observed.
2
1
1
The state does not offer effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination is widespread in the public sector and in society.
Lithuania legislation is largely consonant with European non-discrimination standards. The country’s Criminal Code regulates racially motivated and xenophobic incidents and discriminatory acts. In 2013, Lithuania made it possible to conduct investigations into and prosecute domestic-violence offenses without the victim’s consent, and simplified the procedure for legal gender recognition based on the submission of medical proof of gender‑reassignment surgery.
A number of state institutions are tasked with preventing various forms of discrimination, but their activities lack coordination. Furthermore, NGOs implement activities aimed at strengthening the participation and representation of specific vulnerable groups (e.g., the small Roma population and members of the LGBTQ+ community). Some awareness-raising campaigns have sought to prevent racial discrimination and promote tolerance, but these have been fragmented.
The impact that criminal cases, special-representation measures and awareness-raising campaigns have had on the elimination of discrimination is unclear due to the limited evidence available. Lithuania’s human-rights organizations, particularly the Lithuanian Center for Human Rights, claim that a lack of attention from state institutions, disproportionate budget cuts during the financial and economic crisis, and policy-implementation failures have undermined anti-discrimination and anti-racism efforts.
Despite the adoption of anti-domestic-violence legislation, spousal and child abuse remain problems, as illustrated by a woman’s death in 2013 (due to a lack of response from the police emergency-response center). According to Eurobarometer surveys, combating discrimination effectively in Lithuania remains difficult due to a lack of public support. In addition, political opposition occasionally forms a significant barrier to the implementation and enforcement of equality legislation.
Lithuania ranks 20th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index, with 58.4 points out of a possible 100 (up by one position and 2.1 points compared to 2020). Since 2010, Lithuania’s score has increased by 3.5 points, but its relative ranking has deteriorated by three positions. According to the European Institute of Gender Equality, Lithuania performs best when it comes to work (11th place in the EU) and lags most in the domain of power (18th) which reflects “gender equality in economic decision-making.” Currently, 73% of parliamentarians are men, but only 57% of the government’s members are men. Furthermore, all three leaders of the ruling coalition are women, with two of them serving as the prime minister and as speaker of the parliament.
Citations:
Report on racism and related discriminatory practices in Lithuania can be found at http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/publications/shadow%20report%202010 -11/ENAR%20Shadow%20Report_Lithuania_2011_FINAL_CONFIRMED.pdf
Information on Lithuania by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/followup-procedure.htm
The 2021 freedom rating of Lithuania by the Freedom House is available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Lithuania country report 2016: http://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3737-2016-lt-country-report-nd
The 2021 Gender Equality Index available at https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/LT
A number of state institutions are tasked with preventing various forms of discrimination, but their activities lack coordination. Furthermore, NGOs implement activities aimed at strengthening the participation and representation of specific vulnerable groups (e.g., the small Roma population and members of the LGBTQ+ community). Some awareness-raising campaigns have sought to prevent racial discrimination and promote tolerance, but these have been fragmented.
The impact that criminal cases, special-representation measures and awareness-raising campaigns have had on the elimination of discrimination is unclear due to the limited evidence available. Lithuania’s human-rights organizations, particularly the Lithuanian Center for Human Rights, claim that a lack of attention from state institutions, disproportionate budget cuts during the financial and economic crisis, and policy-implementation failures have undermined anti-discrimination and anti-racism efforts.
Despite the adoption of anti-domestic-violence legislation, spousal and child abuse remain problems, as illustrated by a woman’s death in 2013 (due to a lack of response from the police emergency-response center). According to Eurobarometer surveys, combating discrimination effectively in Lithuania remains difficult due to a lack of public support. In addition, political opposition occasionally forms a significant barrier to the implementation and enforcement of equality legislation.
Lithuania ranks 20th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index, with 58.4 points out of a possible 100 (up by one position and 2.1 points compared to 2020). Since 2010, Lithuania’s score has increased by 3.5 points, but its relative ranking has deteriorated by three positions. According to the European Institute of Gender Equality, Lithuania performs best when it comes to work (11th place in the EU) and lags most in the domain of power (18th) which reflects “gender equality in economic decision-making.” Currently, 73% of parliamentarians are men, but only 57% of the government’s members are men. Furthermore, all three leaders of the ruling coalition are women, with two of them serving as the prime minister and as speaker of the parliament.
Citations:
Report on racism and related discriminatory practices in Lithuania can be found at http://cms.horus.be/files/99935/MediaArchive/publications/shadow%20report%202010 -11/ENAR%20Shadow%20Report_Lithuania_2011_FINAL_CONFIRMED.pdf
Information on Lithuania by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/followup-procedure.htm
The 2021 freedom rating of Lithuania by the Freedom House is available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-world/2021
European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, Lithuania country report 2016: http://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3737-2016-lt-country-report-nd
The 2021 Gender Equality Index available at https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/LT
To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty?
10
9
9
Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty.
8
7
6
7
6
Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration.
5
4
3
4
3
Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory.
2
1
1
Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other.
Overall, the regulatory environment in Lithuania is regarded as satisfactory. Its attractiveness was increased by the harmonization of Lithuanian legislation with EU directives in the pre-accession period, as well as by good compliance with EU law in the post-accession period. In the World Bank’s 2020 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Lithuania scored at the 82nd percentile with respect to the rule of law – a rank that has not changed appreciably throughout the 2015 – 2020 period. The Lithuanian authorities rarely make unpredictable decisions, but the administration has a considerable degree of discretion in implementation. Although administrative actions are based on existing legal provisions, legal certainty sometimes suffers from the mixed quality and complexity of legislation, as well as frequent legislative changes. For instance, during its 2012 to 2016 term, the parliament passed more than 2,500 legislative acts. An OECD report in 2021 noted a problem with the “inflation of legal norms.” A substantial number of laws (e.g., 40.4% of all laws adopted by the parliament between 2012 and 2016) are deliberated according to the procedure of special urgency, which limits the ability to discuss proposals thoroughly during the legislative process.
The unpredictability of laws regulating business activities, especially the country’s tax regime, increased at the start of the financial crisis in 2008 – 2009, when taxes were raised to increase budget receipts. Since that time, successive governments have put considerable focus on creating a stable and predictable legal business environment. The 2015 OECD report on regulatory policy in Lithuania recommended several measures to improve the regulatory environment for businesses. In addition, the previous coalition government had pledged to introduce more predictable policies. However, in late 2019, business associations criticized the debates over potential new tax-code changes as being chaotic, and as violating a two-year-old agreement with the social partners in which the government had promised to ensure the stability of the tax regime.
The pandemic introduced profound levels of unpredictability and has – arguably inevitably – resulted in frequent and substantial regulatory changes. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the quality of the rule of law or the regulatory regime has deteriorated, as the pandemic itself represented a major exogenous shock. Furthermore, its management required balancing predictability on the one hand and acting flexibly in adapting governmental rules and responses to the rapidly changing circumstances on the other. However, the use of government decrees instead of laws adopted by the parliament for managing the pandemic and in introducing important restrictions on citizens’ activities has been criticized.
Laws are often amended during the last stage of parliamentary voting, generally due to the influence of interest groups, a process that increases legal uncertainty. In addition, state policies shift after each parliamentary election (e.g., in autumn 2016, the adoption of the new Labor Code was suspended), reducing predictability within the economic environment. This is particularly true for major infrastructural projects and social policy. For example, pension system rules are frequently amended, increasing uncertainty and reducing trust in the state. In addition, as parliamentary elections approach, legislators frequently become more active in initiating new, often poorly prepared legal changes meant to attract public attention rather than being serious attempts to address public issues. Although most such initiatives are rejected during the process of parliamentary deliberations, they often cause confusion among investors and the public.
Citations:
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
OECD, Lithuania: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021,
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/lithuania-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development. Paris: OECD 2021.
The unpredictability of laws regulating business activities, especially the country’s tax regime, increased at the start of the financial crisis in 2008 – 2009, when taxes were raised to increase budget receipts. Since that time, successive governments have put considerable focus on creating a stable and predictable legal business environment. The 2015 OECD report on regulatory policy in Lithuania recommended several measures to improve the regulatory environment for businesses. In addition, the previous coalition government had pledged to introduce more predictable policies. However, in late 2019, business associations criticized the debates over potential new tax-code changes as being chaotic, and as violating a two-year-old agreement with the social partners in which the government had promised to ensure the stability of the tax regime.
The pandemic introduced profound levels of unpredictability and has – arguably inevitably – resulted in frequent and substantial regulatory changes. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the quality of the rule of law or the regulatory regime has deteriorated, as the pandemic itself represented a major exogenous shock. Furthermore, its management required balancing predictability on the one hand and acting flexibly in adapting governmental rules and responses to the rapidly changing circumstances on the other. However, the use of government decrees instead of laws adopted by the parliament for managing the pandemic and in introducing important restrictions on citizens’ activities has been criticized.
Laws are often amended during the last stage of parliamentary voting, generally due to the influence of interest groups, a process that increases legal uncertainty. In addition, state policies shift after each parliamentary election (e.g., in autumn 2016, the adoption of the new Labor Code was suspended), reducing predictability within the economic environment. This is particularly true for major infrastructural projects and social policy. For example, pension system rules are frequently amended, increasing uncertainty and reducing trust in the state. In addition, as parliamentary elections approach, legislators frequently become more active in initiating new, often poorly prepared legal changes meant to attract public attention rather than being serious attempts to address public issues. Although most such initiatives are rejected during the process of parliamentary deliberations, they often cause confusion among investors and the public.
Citations:
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
OECD, Lithuania: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021,
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/lithuania-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development. Paris: OECD 2021.
To what extent do independent courts control whether government and administration act in conformity with the law?
10
9
9
Independent courts effectively review executive action and ensure that the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
8
7
6
7
6
Independent courts usually manage to control whether the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
5
4
3
4
3
Courts are independent, but often fail to ensure legal compliance.
2
1
1
Courts are biased for or against the incumbent government and lack effective control.
Lithuania’s court system is divided into courts of general jurisdiction and courts of special jurisdiction. A differentiated system of independent courts allows monitoring of the legality of government and public administrative activities. The Constitutional Court rules on the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts adopted by the parliament or issued by the president or government. The Supreme Court reviews lower general-jurisdiction court judgments, decisions, rulings and orders. Disputes that arise in the sphere of public administration are considered within the system of administrative courts. These disputes can include the legality of measures passed and activities performed by administrative bodies, such as ministries, departments, inspections, services and commissions. The system of administrative courts consists of five regional administrative courts and the supreme administrative court.
The overall efficiency of the Lithuanian court system, in terms of disposition time and clearance rate, was assessed by the EU Justice Scoreboard as good. This indicates that the system is capable of dealing with the current volume of incoming cases. Lithuania is one of the leading countries in the European Union in terms of the length of proceedings. The consolidation of district and regional administrative courts will distribute cases more evenly.
According to Vilmorus opinion surveys, public trust in the courts is low. Between 2016 and 2018, these levels showed some modest increase, but an October 2019 Vilmorus survey indicated renewed decrease to about 20%. This was associated with a major corruption probe in which numerous judges were alleged to have taken bribes during criminal proceedings. In December 2021, the public trust level stood at 22% (with 31% expressing distrust). Public trust in the Constitutional Court is higher (47% in May 2021). The OECD has noted that confidence in the judiciary over the last decade was the highest level among OECD members.
Citations:
The EU Justice Scoreboard, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm
For opinion surveys see http://www.vilmorus.lt/en
OECD, Government at a Glance 2001, Lithuania Factsheet, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2021-lithuania.pdf
The overall efficiency of the Lithuanian court system, in terms of disposition time and clearance rate, was assessed by the EU Justice Scoreboard as good. This indicates that the system is capable of dealing with the current volume of incoming cases. Lithuania is one of the leading countries in the European Union in terms of the length of proceedings. The consolidation of district and regional administrative courts will distribute cases more evenly.
According to Vilmorus opinion surveys, public trust in the courts is low. Between 2016 and 2018, these levels showed some modest increase, but an October 2019 Vilmorus survey indicated renewed decrease to about 20%. This was associated with a major corruption probe in which numerous judges were alleged to have taken bribes during criminal proceedings. In December 2021, the public trust level stood at 22% (with 31% expressing distrust). Public trust in the Constitutional Court is higher (47% in May 2021). The OECD has noted that confidence in the judiciary over the last decade was the highest level among OECD members.
Citations:
The EU Justice Scoreboard, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm
For opinion surveys see http://www.vilmorus.lt/en
OECD, Government at a Glance 2001, Lithuania Factsheet, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2021-lithuania.pdf
To what extent does the process of appointing (supreme or constitutional court) justices guarantee the independence of the judiciary?
10
9
9
Justices are appointed in a cooperative appointment process with special majority requirements.
8
7
6
7
6
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies with special majority requirements or in a cooperative selection process without special majority requirements.
5
4
3
4
3
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies without special majority requirements.
2
1
1
All judges are appointed exclusively by a single body irrespective of other institutions.
The country’s judicial appointments process protects the independence of courts. The parliament appoints justices to the Constitutional Court, with an equal number of candidates nominated by the president, the chairperson of the parliament and the president of the Supreme Court. Other justices are appointed according to the Law on Courts. For instance, the president appoints district-court justices from a list of candidates provided by the Selection Commission (which includes both judges and laypeople), after receiving advice from the 23-member Council of Judges. Therefore, appointment procedures require cooperation between democratically elected institutions (the parliament and the president) and include input from other bodies. The appointment process is transparent, even involving civil society at some stages, and – depending on the level involved – is covered by the media. In a recent World Economic Forum survey gauging the public’s perception of judicial independence, Lithuania was ranked 53rd out of 141 countries. Based on the EU Justice Scoreboard, the perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public is around the EU average. Around 50% of Lithuanian respondents assessed the independence of courts and judges as being very good or fairly good, a share that has gradually increased over the 2016 – 2021 period. Companies’ assessments were even more positive.
Citations:
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
The EU Justice Scoreboard, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm
Citations:
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
The EU Justice Scoreboard, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm
To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?
10
9
9
Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Most integrity mechanisms function effectively and provide disincentives for public officeholders willing to abuse their positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Some integrity mechanisms function, but do not effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
2
1
1
Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
Corruption is not sufficiently contained in Lithuania. In the World Bank’s 2020 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Lithuania scored at the 80th percentile on the issue of corruption control, up from 69th in 2018. In the new Index of Public Integrity, Lithuania was ranked 35th out of 114 countries overall, but only 87th on the issue of budget transparency.
One of Lithuania’s key corruption prevention measures is an anti-corruption assessment of draft legislation, which grants the Special Investigation Service the authority to carry out corruption tests. According to the Lithuanian Corruption Map of 2020, measured by the Special Investigation Service based on surveys, the institutions viewed as most corrupt were hospitals, the court system, the parliament and local authorities. A total of 35% of the general population indicated that corruption was a very serious problem. However, there are some positive trends. Compared to previous surveys, the general population, civil servants and business people were for the most part less likely to claim that corruption has become worse, and were more optimistic about the future. For instance, 33% of the general population and as much as 77% of civil servants think that corruption has decreased over the last five years.
In September 2017, the Special Investigation Service investigated allegations of corruption involving Lithuania’s Liberal Movement and Labor party. The parties are suspected of accepting bribes and selling political influence. For instance, two Liberal Movement members are alleged to have accepted bribes of more than €100,000 on behalf of the party from a vice president of a major business group in exchange for political decisions that benefited the corporation. The Special Investigation Service has also launched a high-profile corruption probe into the alleged illegal activities of 48 people (mostly judges and lawyers) suspected of various crimes involving around 110 individual criminal acts.
In 2020 and 2021, the Special Investigation Service launched several prominent corruption investigations targeting the judicial and healthcare sectors, along with government institutions responsible for granting building permits and territorial planning.
According to a 2019 World Economic Forum report, Lithuanian firms still perceive corruption as one of the most important problems for doing business in the country (with the country ranked 36th out of 141 counties in terms of the incidence of corruption). Since state and municipal institutions often inadequately estimate the risk of corruption, not all corruption causes and conditions are addressed in anti-corruption action plans. The European Commission has suggested that Lithuania develop a strategy to tackle informal payments in healthcare and improve the control of conflicts of interest declarations made by public officials.
In 2020, a major scandal broke out when two lobbyists – the heads of the Lithuanian Business Confederation and the Lithuanian Banks Association – were detained as part of an investigation into large-scale bribery. The allegations were related to the use of illegal influence to change legislation. Following the scandal, laws on lobbying were amended, “although their implementation and efficacy are still uncertain” (Nations in Transit 2011). According to the OECD, Lithuania currently has “has good structures in place to monitor and report on integrity and lobbying.”
At the end of 2018, the Lithuanian government created a new Commission for the Coordination of the Fight Against Corruption, which will provide a cross-institution forum to steer implementation and monitoring of the National Anti-Corruption Program. Lithuanian authorities also increased penalties for corruption-related crimes, linking these to the damage caused or benefits obtained from the illegal activities. President Nausėda devoted attention to the reduction of corruption by bringing public attention to the new initiatives and to good practices. Laws on corruption prevention were amended in 2021 with the aim of making corruption prevention efforts more comprehensive.
Citations:
OECD, Government at a Glance 2001, Lithuania Factsheet, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2021-lithuania.pdf
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
The Lithuanian Corruption Map is available at https://www.stt.lt/analitine-antikorupcine-zvalgyba/lietuvos-korupcijos-zemelapis/7437
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
The European Commission. Annex 15 to the EU Anti-Corruption Report: Lithuania. Brussels, 3.2.2014. COM (2014) 38 final.
the Transparency International Corruption Perception index for Lithuania is available at https://www.transparency.org/country/LTU
The Index of Public Integrity is available at http://integrity-index.org/
The European Commission. Annex 15 to the EU Anti-Corruption Report: Lithuania. Brussels, 3.2.2014. COM (2014) 38 final.
One of Lithuania’s key corruption prevention measures is an anti-corruption assessment of draft legislation, which grants the Special Investigation Service the authority to carry out corruption tests. According to the Lithuanian Corruption Map of 2020, measured by the Special Investigation Service based on surveys, the institutions viewed as most corrupt were hospitals, the court system, the parliament and local authorities. A total of 35% of the general population indicated that corruption was a very serious problem. However, there are some positive trends. Compared to previous surveys, the general population, civil servants and business people were for the most part less likely to claim that corruption has become worse, and were more optimistic about the future. For instance, 33% of the general population and as much as 77% of civil servants think that corruption has decreased over the last five years.
In September 2017, the Special Investigation Service investigated allegations of corruption involving Lithuania’s Liberal Movement and Labor party. The parties are suspected of accepting bribes and selling political influence. For instance, two Liberal Movement members are alleged to have accepted bribes of more than €100,000 on behalf of the party from a vice president of a major business group in exchange for political decisions that benefited the corporation. The Special Investigation Service has also launched a high-profile corruption probe into the alleged illegal activities of 48 people (mostly judges and lawyers) suspected of various crimes involving around 110 individual criminal acts.
In 2020 and 2021, the Special Investigation Service launched several prominent corruption investigations targeting the judicial and healthcare sectors, along with government institutions responsible for granting building permits and territorial planning.
According to a 2019 World Economic Forum report, Lithuanian firms still perceive corruption as one of the most important problems for doing business in the country (with the country ranked 36th out of 141 counties in terms of the incidence of corruption). Since state and municipal institutions often inadequately estimate the risk of corruption, not all corruption causes and conditions are addressed in anti-corruption action plans. The European Commission has suggested that Lithuania develop a strategy to tackle informal payments in healthcare and improve the control of conflicts of interest declarations made by public officials.
In 2020, a major scandal broke out when two lobbyists – the heads of the Lithuanian Business Confederation and the Lithuanian Banks Association – were detained as part of an investigation into large-scale bribery. The allegations were related to the use of illegal influence to change legislation. Following the scandal, laws on lobbying were amended, “although their implementation and efficacy are still uncertain” (Nations in Transit 2011). According to the OECD, Lithuania currently has “has good structures in place to monitor and report on integrity and lobbying.”
At the end of 2018, the Lithuanian government created a new Commission for the Coordination of the Fight Against Corruption, which will provide a cross-institution forum to steer implementation and monitoring of the National Anti-Corruption Program. Lithuanian authorities also increased penalties for corruption-related crimes, linking these to the damage caused or benefits obtained from the illegal activities. President Nausėda devoted attention to the reduction of corruption by bringing public attention to the new initiatives and to good practices. Laws on corruption prevention were amended in 2021 with the aim of making corruption prevention efforts more comprehensive.
Citations:
OECD, Government at a Glance 2001, Lithuania Factsheet, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2021-lithuania.pdf
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
The Lithuanian Corruption Map is available at https://www.stt.lt/analitine-antikorupcine-zvalgyba/lietuvos-korupcijos-zemelapis/7437
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
The European Commission. Annex 15 to the EU Anti-Corruption Report: Lithuania. Brussels, 3.2.2014. COM (2014) 38 final.
the Transparency International Corruption Perception index for Lithuania is available at https://www.transparency.org/country/LTU
The Index of Public Integrity is available at http://integrity-index.org/
The European Commission. Annex 15 to the EU Anti-Corruption Report: Lithuania. Brussels, 3.2.2014. COM (2014) 38 final.