Article 131(2) of the Labour Code means not a formal right to receive any job, but the right to preserve the value of the position and the level of employment conditions.
Under Article 61(3) of the Labour Code, an employment contract with employees raising a child under the age of three may not be terminated at the employer’s initiative without fault on the part of the employee under Article 57(1)(1)–(3) of the Labour Code.
After parental leave, the employee must be reinstated to the same or an equivalent position; therefore, lower-ranking duties and a salary reduced by EUR 400 are not a mere matter of employer discretion. The factual scope of the news item is narrow: an employee who worked as a project manager before the birth of her child was, upon return, offered a specialist position and a lower salary. The precise legal question is whether such an offer complies with Article 131(2) of the Labour Code, under which the employer must ensure the right, after special-purpose leave, to return to the same or an equivalent position. Article 33(2) of the Labour Code must also be assessed, because the work function, remuneration terms, and workplace are essential terms of the employment contract. If the employer relies on restructuring, Article 51(1) of the Labour Code is also relevant, as it provides that employer restructuring does not alter employees’ working conditions and cannot constitute a lawful ground for terminating employment relations.
This provision directly covers remuneration, so a EUR 400 reduction is one of the strongest indicators that the conditions have become less favourable. In assessing an “equivalent” position, the following factors are significant according to the sources provided:
In practice, the employee should not sign a document in which the lower position or lower salary is presented as reflecting her own will. A signed agreement or request to terminate the contract would shift the axis of the dispute, because the end of the employment relationship would then be linked to the employee’s expression of will rather than to a breach of the employer’s obligations. It would be most difficult for the employer to justify its position where three circumstances coincide:
The regulation was initiated by the drafters of amendments to the Labour Code in order to implement EU rules on work-life balance, strengthen parental guarantees, and promote a more equal sharing of care responsibilities. The principal argument was the protection of employees, particularly employees with children, and clearer guarantees concerning working conditions and leave. The objections were primarily of a legal-technical nature: the Legal Department emphasised that the provisions must not negate mandatory protections during pregnancy, maternity leave, and parental leave, and also requested that the scope of application and the financial consequences be defined more clearly.
Under Article 426(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, where the damage does not exceed fifteen basic penalty and fine units, the driver is subject to a fine of EUR 600 to EUR 1,100.
Confiscation of property under Article 29(3) is possible only where it is provided for in an article of the Special Part.
Following the judgment of the first-instance court, the administrative sanction imposed by the police on Modestas Tamučius remains in force. The court did not alter the police decision concerning a gross violation of the Road Traffic Rules. The precise legal issue is determined under Article 426 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, if the case concerns leaving the scene of a traffic accident. Under Article 426(2), where the damage exceeds fifteen basic penalty and fine units, the driver is subject to a fine of EUR 1,100 to EUR 2,000.
In this situation, the court assessed the conditions for administrative liability. Article 1(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides that the Code defines administrative offences, penalties, measures of influence, and procedure. If leaving the scene of a traffic accident is established, the decisive elements are as follows:
In practical terms, the most important point for Tamučius is that the first-instance court did not remove the liability imposed by the police. This means that the financial sanction remains as permitted by the relevant provision of the Code of Administrative Offences and as upheld by the court. The sources provided do not establish any direct legal consequences for the market or for the company Lantelis. Administrative liability here is linked to the driving conduct of a natural person. The possible further scenarios under the sources provided are limited:
On the information provided, the baseline classification is Article 140(1) of the Criminal Code, but the presence of a close relative or family member element would increase the sanction to imprisonment for up to two years.
For an act provided for in Article 140(1), a person is liable only where there is a complaint by the victim, a statement by the victim’s lawful representative, a request by the prosecutor, or where the investigation was opened after signs of domestic violence were identified.
For participants in both conflicts, criminal liability risk will depend on the extent of the injury and the relationship between the parties, rather than solely on the fact of violence itself. The report refers to pre-trial investigations concerning the infliction of physical pain or minor impairment of health under Article 140 of the Criminal Code. The precise issue is whether, in each case, only physical pain or minor injury has been established, or whether there are grounds to move to another provision on impairment of health. This issue is assessed under Article 140(1)-(4) of the Criminal Code, and by comparison with Article 138(1) and Article 135(1) of the Criminal Code.
Article 140(1) of the Criminal Code applies to a person who, by beating or otherwise using violence, caused physical pain, minor injury, or a short-term illness to another person. The penalties provided for such conduct are community service, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year. This also covers a case in which a hand was injured with a table utensil, provided that only minor impairment of health is established. If the victim is a close relative or family member, Article 140(2) of the Criminal Code applies, under which the maximum term of imprisonment increases to two years. If the act was committed against a young child or by torturing the victim, Article 140(3) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment for up to three years. In the second episode, the violence occurred at home, but that circumstance alone, on the sources provided, does not yet establish the family member or close relative element. In the first episode, the referenced table utensil may be relevant to establishing the facts, but under the cited provisions it does not in itself alter the sanction under Article 140 of the Criminal Code. The levels of intoxication in both episodes are stated as facts, but the sources provided do not contain a provision under which the blood alcohol level would alter the classification under Article 140 of the Criminal Code. The boundary between Article 140 of the Criminal Code and more serious impairments of health depends on the consequences. Article 138(1) of the Criminal Code applies where a person has lost a minor part of professional or general capacity for work, or has suffered a long-term illness. Article 135(1) of the Criminal Code applies where the consequences are serious, for example loss of sight, hearing, fertility, loss of a substantial part of capacity for work, or irreparable disfigurement of the body. The extent of impairment of health is not determined solely by an everyday description of the injury. Article 141(1) of the Criminal Code states that the characteristics of impairments of health provided for in Articles 135, 138 and 140 are defined by the approved rules for determining the extent of impairment of health. The cited legal source concerning Draft Law No. XIIP-3954 also emphasizes that, in the absence of serious impairment of health, the act is classified according to the extent of impairment as falling under either Article 138 or Article 140 of the Criminal Code. Article 140(4) of the Criminal Code is procedurally significant. Accordingly, in a baseline Article 140(1) episode, the victim’s position or the prosecutor’s request may determine the course of liability.
The practical consequence for the suspects is not merely the opening of an investigation, but also the range of possible penalties. If both episodes remain classified under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Code, the most severe sanction for each would be imprisonment for up to one year. If the family member or close relative element is established, the maximum threshold under Article 140(2) would be imprisonment for up to two years. Criminal-law measures may also be relevant. Article 67(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code allow, inter alia, compensation for damage, an obligation to live separately or refrain from approaching the victim, participation in programs addressing violent behavior, or participation in alcohol prevention and other programs to be imposed on a natural person together with the penalty. This is particularly practical in a case of violence occurring at home, if the investigation provides grounds for applying protective measures. The further course will depend on the determination of the extent of impairment of health and the legal assessment of the relationship between the participants in the conflict. If the consequences are assessed as a long-term illness or loss of a minor part of capacity for work, classification may be considered under Article 138(1) of the Criminal Code, the sanction for which reaches imprisonment for up to three years.