Lithuanian PM criticized after conflict of interest ruling; plans appeal

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė faces scrutiny after the Corruption Prevention Commission (VTEK) determined she violated conflict of interest laws. VTEK announced that Šimonytė severely breached the law regulating the combination of public and private interests by signing orders for official delegations that included her family members during visits to Italy and the Vatican in the spring.

“

VTEK's decision is not supported, and we will appeal it to the court. The Prime Minister acted according to the established practice of forming official delegations, which has been applied for many years during visits of the highest state leaders. That is precisely why we contacted VTEK in March, asking for a clear assessment and clarification of this practice.

Giedrimas Sakalauskas, VTEK chairman, stated that the Prime Minister found herself in a "classic situation of interest conflict" by signing decrees that included her relatives in delegations. However, Šimonytė's advisor, Ignas Dobrovolskas, expressed disagreement with VTEK's decision, announcing plans to appeal to the court. He argued that the Prime Minister acted according to an established practice for forming official delegations, which has been in place for years during high-level state visits.

Political scientist S. Spurga reacted to the swift response from the Prime Minister's team, calling the statement "worthy of attention." He contrasted the current situation with that of former Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis, who reportedly paid for his wife and children's Vatican trip out of his own pocket. Spurga questioned the purpose of VTEK if high-ranking officials consistently disagree with its opinions and choose to litigate. He emphasized that public officials should uphold transparency principles, which VTEK aims to remind them of.

“

Especially considering that Saulius Skvernelis, who was prime minister before, paid for his wife and children's trip to the Vatican out of his own pocket. The custom of top state officials not agreeing with VTEK's opinion and arguing with it in court is strange. If VTEK is not trusted so much, if VTEK's reliability is questioned – why is such a Commission needed at all? Top officials should be dignified and recognize the principles of transparency that VTEK reminds them of.

Spurga further noted that official government statements prior to the visits claimed the Chancellor's Office would cover expenses because the entire family would be performing state functions. VTEK, however, concluded that a leader cannot sign decisions that provide financial benefits to their close relatives, a principle Spurga described as universally recognized in democratic societies. He expressed confusion regarding the "established practice" the Prime Minister's office referenced, especially given VTEK's clear stance on the matter.

“

In this case, VTEK stated a universal principle, a simple thing: the leader cannot sign decisions by which his close people, family members, receive benefits, financial benefits. In democratic societies, this principle is universally recognized, and VTEK chairman G. Sakalauskas calls it classic. So it is really unclear what established practice of forming official delegations the prime minister is appealing to.