One of the most important measures in terms of promoting the development of renewable energy is the simplification of permit-issuing procedures for renewable energy projects. A number of recent legal acts in this area have been adopted at the EU level, including Directive 2023/2413, also known as RED III. Amendments contained within this have been criticised for lowering environmental protection and impacting assessment standards. A less frequently discussed but yet equally important aspect is the relationship between national administrative law and EU rules on permitting renewable energy projects. The preparation of this article was prompted by the fact that the simplification of permit procedures for renewable energy projects has a significant impact on the member state administrative systems and governance structures. One of the article’s main objectives is to examine, from the perspective of administrative law, EU and Lithuanian legal frameworks where these relate to procedures for granting permits for renewable energy projects. The research is conducted through an assessment of the general legal regulation of permit issuance in Lithuania, and the task io linking this aspect with innovations which have been introduced by the EU in terms of permit procedures for renewable energy projects. Both the Lithuanian legal system and its doctrine are facing several challenges: it is necessary to systematise and clearly regulate general provisions for permit issuance while, at the same time, in specific sectors such as the issuance of permits for renewable energy projects, new EU permitting provisions are being introduced which have previously been unknown to national law.

The rapid development of digital technologies and the digitization of copyrighted objects have opened the door to online copyright infringement. The illegal use of copyrighted content (music, films, TV series, sports broadcasts, etc.) is a complex problem that is difficult to tackle in the context of constantly evolving and changing technologies. One of the solutions to protect the interests of creators and legitimate businesses in the digital environment is to limit the availability of illegal content, i.e., blocking access to websites that host illegal content. The implementation of blocking has many practical problems and challenges as it involves competition between fundamental rights, i.e., the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the protection of intellectual property, and it is important to strike a balance between these rights. The article analyses the legal regulation of blocking in Lithuania and the decisions of the CJEU related to blocking in copyright infringement cases, which reveals the content of the principle of proportionality and seeks to assess and answer the question of whether the blocking established in Lithuania complies with the principle of proportionality or whether it is appropriate to expand blocking.

Lithuania has concluded numerous bilateral agreements for mutual assistance in civil and commercial matters. Part of these agreements were concluded with post-Soviet states and contain provisions on lis (alibi) pendens, which govern the rules for navigating parallel proceedings in the Member States party to such bilateral agreements. However, the bilateral agreements remain silent on how to address concurrent proceedings where the judgment in proceedings before one State’s court will affect the outcome of proceedings before a foreign State’s court.The Brussels I Recast Regulation, in turn, introduced new mechanisms to prevent conflicting or irreconcilable judgments where both proceedings are pending before a third country’s court and the national court of a Member State of the European Union, as embodied in Articles 33 and 34 of the Regulation, respectively.This article will examine the lis pendens regime in the relevant bilateral agreements with third countries and analyze the interaction between such bilateral agreements and Articles 33–34 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and other special regulations.

Since May 1, 2003, when the Penal Code of the Republic of Lithuania came into force, the regulation of conditional release in Lithuania has changed several times. The conditions initially depended on disciplinary categories: less serious cases required serving half of the sentence, while recidivists had to serve up to three-quarters. There were exceptions as well – since, for example, pregnant women or parents with minor children could be released after serving one-third of their sentence. Later amendments introduced additional criteria, such as behavior, incentives, and disciplinary sanctions. A significant change occurred in 2012, when the Law on Probation of the Republic of Lithuania came into effect, and Conditional Release Commissions were established. Although recent statistics indicate a more effective application of conditional release, a deeper analysis reveals persistent issues, among which, particularly, an overestimation of prisoner risk levels and the lack of synergy between the Conditional Release Commissions and the courts. Conditional release is an important tool for social reintegration, helping convicted persons gradually reintegrate into society. It promotes public safety, reduces crime, and mitigates the harmful effects of imprisonment. It is considered a component of progressive sentence enforcement, ensuring a structured transition from incarceration to life in freedom through individualized conditions and supervision. Lithuanian statistics from 2020 to 2024 show that this measure is effective as the proportion of individuals who successfully completed conditional release increased from 68% (in 2020) to 81% (in 2024).

The objective of this article is to determine the improvements required by ICAO’s institutional mechanisms so to enforce compliance with Standards contained in Annexes to the Chicago Convention, detailing preventive safety or security measures. To offer a comprehensive study, the article analyses the enforcement measures under international law, the enforcement mechanisms of organising it internationally, the monitoring mechanisms of ICAO, and the mechanism on the settlement of disputes included in the Chicago Convention. The article recommends a number of amendments to the Chicago Convention and analyses the challenges to achieve such recommendations.

This paper focuses on the application of the general jurisdiction rule and the special jurisdiction rule under Article 7 (1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December, 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (Regulation Brussels I bis) in Lithuanian jurisprudence. It firstly briefly presents the general jurisdiction rule, and then penetrates into the discussion about the special jurisdiction rule under Article 7 (1) of Regulation Brussels I (recast) revealing the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and answering the question whether Lithuanian courts apply this legal norm correctly. By analysing the Case Law, the authors reveal the peculiarities of the national Case Law and disclose how it is compatible with the jurisprudence of the CJEU. The research aims to contribute to the development of the Lithuanian legal doctrine, by analysing Regulation Brussels I bis.

This paper presents an analysis of the possibility of civil liability application for operators of online marketplaces for third party trademark infringements in Lithuania. In order to meet the objectives of the work, the author analyses the concept of trademark use, reviews the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the qualification of individual cases of trademark use, and discusses the positions on the requirements for online marketplaces with regard to content control and application of ‘safe harbours’. The paper concludes that, although the possibility of ‘traditional’ indirect civil liability for infringements of trademark rights is not currently provided for in Lithuanian law, the alternative measures that are already established, such as direct civil liability for unauthorised trademark use, or civil liability for breach of the general duty of care, suggest that the current model of civil liability for online marketplaces is sufficient.

The article analyses the impact of the EU General Data Protection Regulation on the admissibility of evidence in Lithuanian civil procedure after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-268/21. The article provides an overview of the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation for civil proceedings and identifies specific problematic aspects that could unbalance the evidentiary system in Lithuanian civil proceedings.

The article addresses Lithuania‘s compliance with labour, employment, and social policy laws of the European Union (EU) after its accession to the EU. It highlights the significance of social and employment policies within the EU framework, as noted in the Lisbon Strategy and the European Pillar of Social Rights, and emphasises the continuous need to update national legislation to conform with expanding EU regulations.The authors examine legislative advancements in the European Union throughout the previous ten years, examining social policy patterns and obstacles, including the COVID-19 pandemic, migration, and the economic downturn of 2007–2008. With an emphasis on the difficulties of the last ten years, they want to evaluate the development of social policy and labour law in the EU and in Lithuania.According to the article, during the past decade, the EU has changed its approach to social policy and labour relations, from harmonisation to coordination. Recent European Commission proposals focus on economic matters, with a growing emphasis on the use of soft-law measures for social regulation. The EU‘s equal opportunities policy is changing, especially with regard to gender equality and work-life balance. The European Commission is pushing for legislation to improve work-life balance options, such as parental and paternity leaves. The goal of the EU Minimum Wage Directive 2022/2041 is to end wage dumping and reduce poverty among workers, especially those earning the minimum wage. It creates procedural principles for minimum wage setting in Member States but does not impose a uniform minimum pay level throughout the EU. Lithuania will have difficulty implementing this directive into national legislation, nevertheless, as its current collective bargaining and minimum wage models might not adhere to the directive‘s standards.

The article deals with the gradual development of the EU as a community of values and the role of the CJEU and national courts in upholding and developing these values. The analysis of judicial practice reveals the crucial role performed by national courts and the CJEU in protecting the fundamental rights and the principle of the rule of law both at the EU and national levels. On the one hand, „upstream“, national courts act as guardians of the fundamental values at the EU level by referring questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the Charter and the legality of the secondary EU legislation vis-à-vis the Charter, thus contributing to the functioning of a decentralised constitutional control of EU legislation and stabilising the EU level of governance. On the other hand, “downstream”, recent developments of the CJEU jurisprudence interpreting Article 19 of the Treaty on the European Union confirm the thesis that the CJEU treats national courts as European courts that are cornerstones of the decentralised EU judicial system. The CJEU practice shows that differently from Article 47 of the Charter, Article 19 of the TEU is perceived not as providing protection of individual rights but rather as a systemic and permanent guarantee of judicial independence as a part of a fundamental value of the Union, thus aiming at stabilisation of national judicial systems and assuring the effectiveness of protection of the rights stemming from EU law at the national level.