Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Lithuania
Table of contents
Lithuania has adopted the National Anti-Corruption Agenda for 2022-2033 which was approved by Resolution NoXIV-1178 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 28 June 2022.The Special Investigation Service, Lithuania’s central anti-corruption authority, is responsible for coordinating the implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the implementation of the Agenda and its Action Plan. Oversight and enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules are carried out by the Chief Official Ethics Commission which manages the electronic interest declaration system and can investigate breaches
Lithuania has also enacted a dedicated law on lobbying activities which introduces mandatory registration and transparency requirements. Internal control and audit systems are implemented through the Ministry of Finance and Lithuania has an entity responsible for open data policy (Information Society Development Committee).
The Constitution and Law on Courts provides the regulatory framework for judicial integrity in Lithuania, alongside the Judicial Council, a self-governing body of judges, which advises the President of the Republic on judicial appointments, promotions, transfers, and dismissals. Prosecutors are governed by the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service, and the Code of Ethics for Public Prosecutor. There also is a disciplinary procedure for civil servants established in the Lithuanian regulatory framework under Governmental Decree 25.06.2002 No. 977.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Data on where Lithuania’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 87% of criteria on the strength of its strategic framework, and 83% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
Lithuania’s strategy, the National Anti-Corruption Agenda for 2022-2033, includes outcome-level indicators for public integrity objectives, and sets targets for each. It also includes an action plan (Action Plan 2023-2025). The Special Investigation Service, is responsible for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on progress in the implementation of the Agenda and its Action Plan. The strategy was based on an assessment of public integrity risks and a situation analysis, including identification of existing public integrity risks. The strategy also underwent an inter-institutional and public consultation process and the draft received comments from multiple integrity bodies including the Chief Official Ethics Commission, Public Procurement Office and Prosecutor General’s Office. As per the 2024 Monitoring Report, by the end of 2024 Lithuania had implemented 61% of all actions planned for 2023-2025.
However, a minimum duration of at least 2 weeks for inter-institutional and public consultation is not established in legislation for the strategy, nor did the public consultation portal contain a summary sheet for all draft strategies with responses to all submitted comments provided during the public consultation. Additionally, an evaluation report does not exist for the previous national anti-corruption strategy, only mid-term monitoring reports.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 60% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 67% of criteria in practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Law on adjustment of Public and Private Interests includes a mandatory cooling-off period for public officials of one year although there is no mandatory cooling off period for lobbyists upon entering government roles. Sanctions for breaches for standards of transparency are defined and proportional to the severity of the offence. These include a fine on legal persons ranging between €1000 to €4500. Fines consider the extent and duration of the violation, mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the liability of the legal entity.
Additionally, there are no beneficial ownership rules mandating disclosure of company data to identify owners of corporations, to establish a central register, or making information accessible to the public. This database exists as the Information System of Legal Entities Participants, but it can only be accessed via Lithuanian authentication methods.
The Chief Official Ethics Commission supervises lobbying activities and carried out 13 investigations during 2025 for non-compliance with the regulation of lobbying activities or incomplete or erroneous disclosure of information during the latest full calendar year. Lithuania also has a publicly available lobbying register providing information on the name, organisation and domain of intervention of interest of representatives.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 100% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 89% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
The Law on adjustment of Public and Private Interests includes obligations to submit interest declarations for all elected officials, judges and civil servants. The Law also establishes personal liability for electoral candidates who breach the rules and sanctions proportional to the severity of the offence. Those found breaching standards cannot be promoted for one year and persons dismissed from office for cannot be appointed to positions in the public service for three years from the date of dismissal.
In practice, all ministers, members of the Seimas, and members of the highest bodies of the judiciary submitted the required interest declarations over the past six years, as did more than 80% of senior civil servants. The Chief Official Ethics Commission oversees a risk-based approach to verifying the content of declarations and issues recommendations for the resolution of conflict-of-interest situations. It has issued sanctions in two cases in the past three years
The Commission also has the power to propose to the head of the appropriate institution to impose official disciplinary penalties on persons who have committed violations. In each case of violation, the Commission provides a recommendation, but they are mostly of a preventive nature, which the heads of institutions take into account and inform the Commission. The Commission issued 119 decisions in 2020, 71 decisions in 2021 and 55 decisions in 2022. In 2025, 53 recommendations were submitted during this period (26 recommendations in 2022; 10 recommendations in 2023; 17 recommendations in 2024).
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 90% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 86% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
In Lithuania, the Electoral Code bans anonymous donations not exceeding 3% of an average monthly earning, contributions from foreign states and enterprises, and contributions from state-owned enterprises. Sanctions for breaches of political finance and election campaign regulations are defined and proportional to the severity of the offence: a political party that has found to have grossly breached the Law on Political Organisations or has made a violation of the funding of political campaigning a may lose state funding for a period of up to two years.
Electoral candidates can be held personally liable for breaches and be sanctioned such as loss of election deposit or in illegal financing cases, obligation to transfer the sum of the amount of illegal donation (monetary or in-kind) to the state budget. Parties and candidates must report their finances (funding and expenses) during electoral campaigns within 10 working days and political parties must make financial reports public, including all contributions exceeding a fixed ceiling. Electoral campaign expenses for parties and candidates are limited to a ceiling, but this is not the case for third parties.
In practice, in the past five years all parties represented in Parliament submitted annual and electoral financial reports in line with statutory deadlines. Financial reports from all political parties are publicly available from one single online platform in a user-friendly format. The Central Electoral Commission has the mandate to oversee the financing of political parties and election campaigns but it does not have certified auditors in its payroll.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 78% of criteria on access to public information regulations, and 69% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62% respectively.
The regulatory framework Law on the Right to Receive Information and Data Reuse provides that all public institutions and private persons carrying out public functions have the right to access information in all the forms available with the only restrictions to access to public information allowed listed by law and in line with the Tromsø Convention. Furthermore, the right to appeal to an independent body or the court against refusal or inactivity of an administrative body in response to an information request is ensured. However, information requested is not always provided free of charge.
In practice, Lithuania has no dedicated supervisory body responsible for public information issues. Individuals can instead choose whether to appeal to the Regional administrative court, the head of the institution, or to the Lithuanian Administrative Disputes Commission. Additionally, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation is responsible for open data policy and the State Digital Solutions Agency acts as the monitor.
Lithuania proactively publishes many key integrity-related datasets, including the agendas and minutes of Government sessions and ministers’ individual agendas. There is, however, no aggregated data available on access to information requests or salaries of individual senior civil servants in all ministries, although average salaries for a given position are.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Lithuania fulfils 94% of criteria for judicial integrity regulations and 80% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Constitution and the Law on Courts ensure judges’ secure tenure until mandatory retirement, term expiry, or lawful dismissal permitted only on objective grounds, such as a court conviction or health incapacity. The Constitution and the Law on Courts provide merit-based and objective procedures governing the selection, appointment, and promotion of judges. The Judicial Council, a self-governing body of judges, advises the President of the Republic on judicial appointments, promotions, transfers, and dismissals. The Selection Commission and the Examination Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office carry out their assigned functions in the recruitment process in accordance with the Law on Courts. For senior judicial positions, the Seimas also participates: Supreme Court justices and the Court’s President are appointed and released by the Seimas upon the President’s proposal, while judges of the Court of Appeal are appointed by the President with the Parliament’s assent. Applicants for vacant judicial posts in district courts have the right to appeal selection decisions in cases of significant procedural irregularities.
The Law on Courts and the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests outline standards of conduct, including measures on declaring interests to the Chief Official Ethics Commission. The Law on Courts and the Judicial Council’s Internal Reporting Channel Administration Procedure outline mandate internal whistleblowing channels in all courts. While the confidentiality of the reporting person is protected by law, court staff responsible for handling reports are not required to undergo confidentiality training, and current training programs do not address the internal processing of whistleblower reports submitted prior to criminal proceedings.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Lithuania fulfils 86% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulation and 79% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
Prosecutors are governed by the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service, and the Code of Ethics for Public Prosecutors, which define circumstances and relationships that may give rise to conflicts of interest, establish sanctions for related violations, and specify objective grounds for their dismissal. The Criminal Procedure Code sets out recusal measures and procedures. It also regulates procedures for appeals against prosecutorial decisions.
Merit-based procedures govern the selection and promotion of prosecutors under the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office. All candidates have the right to appeal decisions concerning selection, appointment, and promotion, ensuring accountability and fairness in personnel decisions.
The Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers requires all public and private legal entities, including prosecutors’ offices, to maintain internal reporting channels through which current or former employees may confidentially report suspected breaches. These channels, regulated by the Procedure for Submitting Reports on Violations in Institutions to the Prosecutor’s Office, provide safeguards against retaliation and cover a broad range of violations, including threats to public safety, misuse of public funds, obstruction of justice, and environmental hazards. Staff responsible for handling such reports are subject to mandatory confidentiality training.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Lithuania fulfils 67% of criteria on disciplinary system for civil servants’ regulations, and 17% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
There is a disciplinary procedure for civil servants established in the Lithuanian regulatory framework under Governmental Decree 25 06 2002 No. 977, which also defines what constitutes a disciplinary offence, establishes a range of disciplinary sanctions for each type of disciplinary offence (which vary according to the severity and circumstances of the offence) and establishes a statute of limitations for disciplinary offences. The Law on Civil Service explicitly guarantees the right of a civil servant or former civil servant to appeal the decisions regarding disciplinary sanctions or findings of misconduct to a court.
However, training is not provided on how to conduct disciplinary investigations, although the Public Management Agency periodically offers public consultations to institutions on various aspects of human resource management, including topics related to these disciplinary investigations. There is also no electronic case management system to manage disciplinary cases and proceedings. There are also no aggregated datasets that are publicly available on the number of disciplinary proceedings initiated, concluded, and appealed (by type of offence), or the number and type of disciplinary sanctions applied against civil servants.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.