The article focuses on the relationship between arbitrability and the substantive validity of the arbitration agreement. It is justified that a dispute’s (non-)arbitrability is not a homogeneous notion. In some instances, it refers to an exceptionally procedural obstacle to deciding the dispute in arbitration, while, in other cases, it refers to a situation in which the dispute cannot be resolved in arbitration due to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. The paper also analyses the notion of ‘conditional arbitrability’, when the possibility to decide a dispute in arbitration depends on the fulfilment of a condition relating to the arbitration agreement.

The application of the release from criminal liability requires the fulfilment of all four conditions set out in Article 392 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania: 1) recognition of the person as a whistleblower under the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers of the Republic of Lithuania; 2) confession of the committed criminal act; 3) active assistance in disclosing the criminal act committed by another person; 4) the criminal act that the person helped to disclose is more dangerous by its nature than the criminal act committed by the person himself. This scientific article reveals the content and problematic aspects of the conditions for the release of the whistleblower from criminal liability. In addition, the compliance of the provisions of the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers with the requirements set out in Directive (EU) 2019/1937 regarding the definition of the whistleblower status is assessed. The conditions are not thoroughly disclosed in Case Law, and there is limited academic research on this topic. Considering this, the content of the conditions has been analysed through the Case Law and Criminal Law doctrine regarding essentially identical conditions established in other articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code.

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 aim of this article is to show how the ‘welfare of the child’ is implemented in civil proceedings as a legal value (a legal principle) and a non-legal value (a general clause). Therefore, it is necessary to first refer to legal theories defining the concept and relationship between general clauses and legal principles in order to identify procedural and non-procedural provisions and procedural institutions implementing the principle of the welfare of the child in litigation and non-litigious proceedings.The research encompasses Polish Civil Procedural Law and scholarly literature insights regarding the welfare of the child. The analysis has revealed that the introduction of the general clause of ‘the welfare of the child’ into a specific legal provision, as well as the application of the principle of the welfare of the child within various procedural institutions, allows the court, within the limits provided for by law, to make decisions that it considers optimal in the specific situation of the child. Therefore, the Code and non-Code regulations include provisions directly referring to the welfare of the child, but also those in which this concept does not appear, yet there is no doubt that they serve to promote the welfare of the child. This trend in civil proceedings is reflected in the content of general provisions concerning guardianship proceedings, provisions which aim to empower the child and grant them the status of a party in a trial or a participant in non-litigious proceedings, provisions granting the child legal capacity, making the performance of certain acts dependent on the consent of the minor, implementing the right to hear the child, or provisions introducing protection for children appearing as witnesses.

The article examines whether a digital file can be considered an object of ownership under Lithuanian property law. While the Lithuanian Civil Code stipulates that ownership can extend not only to tangible objects but also to other forms of property, there are no clearly defined legal criteria for determining which objects fall within this category and can be recognized as ownership objects. The analysis includes Case Law from the European Court of Justice and national courts of other jurisdictions, which generally take a sceptical stance on recognizing digital files as independent objects of ownership. The article highlights that digital files fundamentally differ from traditional ownership objects, as their reproduction is unrestricted, and identical copies can exist simultaneously, thereby challenging the applicability of the principle of specificity. Considering these factors, the article concludes that digital files do not meet the requirements of specificity and the owner’s direct control, thus making their recognition as ownership objects under Lithuanian law problematic.

In the Soviet Union in the 1960s, criminal cases were brought against individuals who speculated (traded with the aim of making a profit) in foreign currency and valuables. There were two criminal trials that were widely publicised in Soviet Lithuania in 1962 – the Vilnius and Kaunas foreign currency dealer cases. The proceedings were also notable in that some of the defendants were sentenced to execution by firing squad. The Vilnius and Kaunas foreign currency dealer cases were examined in accordance with the 1957–1961 Soviet Criminal Law reform.Reformed criminal laws were in force in the Soviet Union. They prohibited the imposition of stricter penalties for actions committed in previous periods. However, in the case of the Vilnius foreign currency dealers, the death penalty was imposed for acts of trading in foreign currency and valuables that the defendants had carried out before the punishment of death penalty was introduced for this crime. The execution by fusillading some of the individuals convicted in the Vilnius foreign currency dealer case may have been decided by the fact that, at the initiative of the Soviet Security, a resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union which had been adopted even before the trial was submitted to the case, listing the names of persons against whom it was permitted to retroactively apply the criminal law providing for the death penalty.The case files provide no grounds to claim that the defendants’ Jewish identity was the basis for initiating the speculation cases or for the sentences that were given. However, the defendants themselves tended to emphasise that they were Jewish in their attempts to explain the reasons for their involvement in trading in valuables and their possession of the material resources for these activities.

With the rapid evolution of the digital economy and the ongoing processes of globalisation, novel forms of conduct by economic operators are emerging – and some of these may infringe upon the EU competition law yet remain insufficiently examined. Considering the inherent uncertainty and the open-ended nature of the core concepts underpinning the EU competition law, this article seeks to explore two theoretical frameworks that may enhance the effective application of competition rules in a dynamic and rapidly transforming economic environment. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the concepts of autonomous law and responsive law as potential interpretative approaches. The study begins by examining these concepts through the lens of legal theory and proceeds to evaluate their relevance in the context of the EU competition law, whose objective is to govern an ever-evolving internal market. It argues that the adaptability afforded by the open-textured structure of EU competition law permits a flexible interpretation that can accommodate complex and shifting market realities – provided that such interpretation considers a plurality of objectives and the broader implications of legal reasoning. While this adaptive tendency is increasingly evident in the practice of EU institutions, it simultaneously raises concerns regarding legal certainty.

The article deals with the justification of the adopting of advertising legal requirements for the fast fashion sector in the EU. In light of this objective, it seeks to elaborate on similarities between the fast fashion and the tobacco industries. The article proposes imposing regulatory measures for fast fashion advertising, similar to those applied to tobacco advertising in the European Union (EU), or even going beyond that. Thus, taking into account the similarities between these sectors, it proposes either to adapt tobacco-related advertising regulations to the regulation of the fast fashion sector (specifically for the area of advertising of fast fashion) in the EU (e.g., partial prohibitions on some domains, warnings, etc.) or to consider a complete advertising ban on fast fashion advertising in the EU.

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.

This article examines the implementation of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of collective consumer interests in Lithuania. The study highlights the Directive’s significance for the protection of collective consumer interests, analyses the legislative choices made, and critically assesses certain statutory provisions. The research reveals that the absence of a regulated and effective funding system for representative actions in the Directive reduces the potential for significant advancements in consumer collective interest protection. An assessment of the national regulation indicates a lack of thorough argumentation regarding certain procedural aspects of representative actions, as well as a missing systemic approach to civil procedure law and consumer procedural safeguards.