Teisė
type: channel
description: Founded in 1957 and dedicated to publishing articles on theoretical and practical issues of law.
publisher: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla / Vilnius University Press
language: en
publication name: Teisė
issn: 1392-1274
copyright: Please read the Copyright Notice in Journal Policy.
items: The Standard of Proof in Lithuanian Civil Proceedings
items: Third-Party Litigation Funding
items: Interaction Between the Principles of Expediency and Thoroughness as well as Safeguarding of Human Rights in the Procedure for Issuing a Court Penal Order
items: (In)compatibility of Evidence Admissibility Limitations with the Fair Resolution of a Civil Dispute
items: Algorithmic Discrimination against Employees
items: Relationship between Arbitrability and Invalidity of the Arbitration Agreement
items: Comparative Analysis of Criminal Liability for Bribery in Lithuania and Poland
items: Peculiarities of the Substantive Defence of the Debtor Against Enforcement in Polish and Lithuanian Law
items: Editorial Board and Table of Contents
items: Regulation of a Lawyer’s Duty not to Disclose Professional Secrecy in Latvia

The Standard of Proof in Lithuanian Civil Proceedings
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">The aim of this article is to review the standard of proof applied in Lithuanian civil proceedings. The article analyses the concept, function, and types of the standard of proof. An analysis of statutory law, court practice, and legal scholarship reveals that the Lithuanian civil procedure has long lacked a uniformly applied standard of proof. The article demonstrates that the 2024 decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly influenced the application of a uniform standard of proof, leading courts to apply the reasonable belief standard more frequently thereafter.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: standard of proof
  topic: keywords
subject: civil procedure
  topic: keywords
subject: evidence
  topic: keywords
subject: cognitive bias
  topic: keywords
creator: Jurgis Bartkus
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 140
ending page: 154
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.9

Third-Party Litigation Funding
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">The article analyzes the concept of third-party litigation funding and its limitations. The study aims to consistently identify the essential features of this form of dispute financing and, by analyzing them, to conceptually reveal the essence of third-party litigation funding in commercial litigation. The article identifies four essential features of third-party litigation funding: coverage of litigation costs, provision of financing by an external entity unrelated to the parties to the dispute, remuneration for financing, and a conditional return for the funder depending on the outcome of the case. It is emphasized that, due to the variety of dispute financing models that exist in practice, these characteristics must be interpreted systematically, while taking into account the specific factual circumstances, as well as the purpose and nature of the financing. It is concluded that a clear distinction between commercial and non-commercial funding is a necessary condition for consistent risk assessment and proportionate regulation of this institution.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: third-party litigation funding
  topic: keywords
subject: dispute funding
  topic: keywords
subject: civil procedure
  topic: keywords
subject: litigation costs
  topic: keywords
creator: Justina Zokaitė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 126
ending page: 139
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.8

Interaction Between the Principles of Expediency and Thoroughness as well as Safeguarding of Human Rights in the Procedure for Issuing a Court Penal Order
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">This article examines the relationship between the principles of expediency and thoroughness in the procedure for issuing a court penal order, as well as the safeguarding of the rights of the suspect (accused) when especially applying the principle of thoroughness. The analysis demonstrates that, up to the point at which the prosecutor submits the statement to the court, the principles of expediency and thoroughness interact in a manner analogous to that in ordinary criminal proceedings, namely that evidence is collected comprehensively while avoiding undue delay in the criminal process. However, once the court receives the statement of the prosecutor – and particularly when it decides to issue a court penal order – the principle of expediency assumes exceptional significance. At the same time, the principle of thoroughness is not negated, given its intrinsic link to establishing material truth; rather, it is more prominently manifested prior to the submission of the prosecutor’s statement to the court and during proceedings conducted under the ordinary, rather than simplified, procedural framework. The article also assesses the safeguarding of the rights of the suspect (accused) through the benefits granted to the suspect, as revealed through the application of the principle of thoroughness. Research shows that even benefits (a lenient sentence) can cause damage, which is why the suspect (accused) needs safeguards.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: principle of expediency
  topic: keywords
subject: principle of thoroughness
  topic: keywords
subject: procedure for issuing a court penal order
  topic: keywords
subject: safeguarding of the rights of the suspect (accused)
  topic: keywords
creator: Greta Skripkutė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 113
ending page: 125
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.7

(In)compatibility of Evidence Admissibility Limitations with the Fair Resolution of a Civil Dispute
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">he article examines the (in)compatibility of evidentiary admissibility limitations with the fair resolution of civil disputes. Statutory restrictions and prohibitions on the admissibility of evidence serve two functions: firstly, they protect the parties from the use of unlawful or improperly obtained evidence; secondly, they prevent the court from relying on information which, despite being potentially helpful in establishing the factual truth, has been obtained in violation of fundamental legal principles or values protected by law. In this way, balance is maintained between the pursuit of truth and a lawful, fair process, thus safeguarding both individual and public interests. Therefore, limitations on the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings should be understood as an essential safeguard to ensure that judicial decisions are based solely on lawful, reliable, and properly obtained data.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: evidence
  topic: keywords
subject: admissibility of evidence
  topic: keywords
subject: restrictions on admissibility
  topic: keywords
subject: secret information
  topic: keywords
creator: Indrė Maculevičienė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Indrė Maculevičienė https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 97
ending page: 112
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.6

Algorithmic Discrimination against Employees
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">Discrimination against candidates, employees, and platform workers is prohibited. In recent years, employers have increasingly relied on automated systems in employment relationships, and the outputs generated by these systems (including decisions, recommendations to employers, and others) may infringe on the principle of equal treatment. When automated systems produce discriminatory outcomes or base their outputs on prohibited grounds of discrimination, algorithmic discrimination arises. This article aims to formulate a definition of algorithmic discrimination in employment relationships and to analyse its forms of occurrence in the context of anti-discrimination law. The object of the study is the forms of occurrence of algorithmic discrimination in employment relationships and its assessment under international, European Union, and national legal acts establishing the prohibition of discrimination, as well as relevant case law. The article formulates and presents a definition of algorithmic discrimination, linking it to the generation of discriminatory outputs by automated systems, which result in negative consequences for protected groups distinguished by prohibited discrimination grounds. It examines forms of direct and indirect algorithmic discrimination in the context of employment relations. The study concludes that direct algorithmic discrimination arises when an automated system generates outputs based on prohibited discrimination grounds (for example, sex, age, and ot…
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: algorithmic discrimination
  topic: keywords
subject: candidate
  topic: keywords
subject: employee
  topic: keywords
subject: platform workers
  topic: keywords
subject: employer
  topic: keywords
subject: automated system
  topic: keywords
subject: output
  topic: keywords
creator: Ineta Breskienė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 75
ending page: 96
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.5

Relationship between Arbitrability and Invalidity of the Arbitration Agreement
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">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.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: arbitration
  topic: keywords
subject: arbitrability
  topic: keywords
subject: arbitration agreement
  topic: keywords
subject: invalidity
  topic: keywords
creator: Tadas Varapnickas
creator: Eglė Zemlytė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 41
ending page: 61
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.3

Comparative Analysis of Criminal Liability for Bribery in Lithuania and Poland
type: item
description: <span lang="en-GB" style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">The article analyzes certain problematic aspects of bribery, as discussed by scientists in Poland and Lithuania. It should be noted that both countries face challenges in determining what constitutes personal benefit (lt. <em lang="en-GB" style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">asmeninė nauda<span lang="en-GB" style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">) when it comes to types of bribes. It is also worth noting that, in Polish criminal law science, the issue of distinguishing between a bribe and a gift receives considerable attention. The analysis is primarily focused on the professions of doctors and teachers. However, in the case of Lithuania, this issue seems to be somewhat less discussed.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: bribery
  topic: keywords
subject: criminal liability
  topic: keywords
subject: bribe
  topic: keywords
subject: penalty
  topic: keywords
creator: Justyna Levon
creator: Romualdas Drakšas
creator: Janusz Raglewski
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Justyna Levon | Romualdas Drakšas | Janusz Raglewski https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 25
ending page: 40
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.2

Peculiarities of the Substantive Defence of the Debtor Against Enforcement in Polish and Lithuanian Law
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">Studies of enforcement proceedings are usually limited to analysing the effectiveness or specific features of the application of procedural rules governing compulsory enforcement proceedings. This focus of scientific research on the area regulated by procedural law is based on the classic distinction between investigative and enforcement proceedings, recognising that all disputed facts have already been established in civil proceedings (investigative proceedings), while the enforcement proceedings seek only to enforce the court decision as quickly as possible. However, this article aims to reveal how substantive law measures can influence enforcement proceedings that have already been initiated. The object of the study is to analyse the remedies available to the debtor under substantive law against the enforcement proceedings that have already begun, to distinguish them from procedural remedies in the enforcement proceedings, and to reveal their exceptional nature. The article provides a comparative analysis of these measures in Polish and Lithuanian civil proceedings, by revealing their similarities and differences and comparing how the same objectives are pursued by different means. In Poland, the debtor’s right to challenge the basis of the enforcement process is clearly established in civil procedure law, while, in Lithuania, this right of the debtor is recognised in court practice, with its exceptional nature being emphasized. The conclusions at the end of the article empha…
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: investigation proceeding
  topic: keywords
subject: enforcement proceeding
  topic: keywords
subject: judicial control over the enforcement proceedings
  topic: keywords
subject: debtor’s defence measures
  topic: keywords
creator: Joanna Derlatka
creator: Egidija Tamošiūnienė
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Joanna Derlatka | Egidija Tamošiūnienė https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 8
ending page: 24
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2026.138.1

Editorial Board and Table of Contents
type: item
description: -
subject: Front Matter
  topic: section
subject: -
  topic: keywords
creator: Gintaras Švedas
rights: Copyright (c) 2026 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2026-06-10
publication date: 2026-06-10
starting page: 1
ending page: 7

Regulation of a Lawyer’s Duty not to Disclose Professional Secrecy in Latvia
type: item
description: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">The article analyzes the regulation of the sworn advocate’s duty not to disclose professional secrecy in Latvia while considering several aspects, and primarily focusing on the circumstances in which the advocate is obliged to disclose the information received. In the opinion of the authors, the principle of confidentiality should not outweigh the public interest, but only when the issue is related to the prevention or disclosure of a criminal offence and is not directly related to the defence of the advocate’s specific client. In the context of the problem under consideration, there is neither a basis nor a fair way to divide criminal offences according to the degrees of gravity established by the Criminal Law of the Republic of Latvia, as such regulation would not comply with the principle of the rule of law; the discussed obligation of the advocate to disclose the information received should apply to every criminal offence. In other words, the obligation of the advocate to report crimes should be extended beyond the limits of Article 315 of the Criminal Law of the Republic of Latvia, which provides for liability for failure to report a serious or especially serious crime. Since the activities of a lawyer are also aimed at establishing justice and strengthening the rule of law, a lawyer must also report on the preparation of less serious crimes and even criminal misdemeanors.
subject: Articles
  topic: section
subject: lawyer
  topic: keywords
subject: professional ethics
  topic: keywords
subject: professional secrecy
  topic: keywords
subject: principle of confidentiality
  topic: keywords
subject: disciplinary liability of a lawyer
  topic: keywords
creator: Tatjana I. Jurkeviča
creator: Anatoliy A. Lytvynenko
creator: Jevgenij Machovenko
rights: Copyright (c) 2025 Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
date: 2025-12-01
publication date: 2025-12-01
starting page: 130
ending page: 143
doi: 10.15388/Teise.2025.137.9