Judge Avoids Disciplinary Case Over Delayed Rulings

A Lithuanian judge, L. Matusevičiūtė, has avoided a formal disciplinary case despite evidence of significant delays in announcing court decisions. The review stemmed from a complaint by an applicant who stated that the judge's prolonged delays in issuing a ruling resulted in nearly 1,000 euros in additional interest payments.

An investigation into Judge Matusevičiūtė's conduct revealed that the delays were not isolated incidents. Between January 1, 2024, and April 1, 2026, 40 out of 77 cases she handled experienced decision announcements delayed multiple times, ranging from three to thirteen times longer than usual. In one civil case, a decision was delayed for 202 days after the hearing, and in another, for 65 days.

The Judges' Ethics and Disciplinary Commission found that Matusevičiūtė had not adhered to the principles of diligence outlined in the Judges' Ethics Code, showing signs of negligent performance of duties. However, the commission took into account that the judge fully admitted the violations, expressed regret, and committed to preventing future occurrences. Her previous performance evaluations were excellent, with a legal work quality score of 91 in 2022.

“

In the case under review, it is not expedient to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judge, and the discussion within the Commission is a sufficient impact on the judge.

Ultimately, the commission concluded that opening a formal disciplinary case was unnecessary. They determined that the review itself served as a sufficient measure to address the judge's conduct. It was noted that Matusevičiūtė personally drafts her decisions, a practice that may contribute to workload management challenges. Her background includes extensive experience as a judicial assistant.

During the review, Matusevičiūtė explained that the situation arose from her insufficient skills and knowledge in organizing and planning her work. She stated that upon receiving new cases, she prioritized scheduling them for hearings quickly, which led to an overload of court sessions. The judge also presided over several high-profile civil cases, including one involving public figure Andrius Tapinas.

“

The judge noted that the situation arose because she lacked sufficient skills and knowledge to properly organize and plan her work.