In June 2026, the agenda of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) included three vacancies within the judicial system: the appointment of Gintaras Goda, former President of the Constitutional Court, as a judge of the Supreme Court; the appointment of the President of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal for a second term (the candidate being the incumbent President, Nerijus Meilutis); and the transfer of Marius Bartninkas, President of the Kaunas Regional Court, to the post of judge at the Supreme Court of Lithuania. All candidates were nominated by the President in accordance with the procedure for the appointment of judges.
The appointment of Gintaras Goda as a judge of the Supreme Court was approved by Parliament, whilst the other two candidates did not receive the required number of votes. On 15 June this year, the Lithuanian Judges’ Association published a statement on ensuring the independence of judges and the courts, which states:
“The Lithuanian Judges’ Association expresses concern regarding the situation in which, on 9 June 2026, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania failed to appoint judges by secret ballot, despite the fact that both candidates had successfully completed the selection and appointment procedures laid down by law, had been assessed by the competent authorities and had received positive opinions regarding their suitability for the posts in question.
Publicly available data show that no objections were raised against the candidates regarding their professional qualifications, reputation, ethics, competence or other circumstances that might give rise to reasonable doubts as to their suitability for the posts to which they were to be appointed. On the contrary, the competent judicial selection and assessment bodies had issued positive opinions, and the Seimas Committee on Justice and Public Order unanimously confirmed the candidates’ suitability.
It should also be noted that the members of the Seimas did not take the opportunity to publicly set out arguments that would justify voting against the appointment of these candidates. Consequently, neither the candidates themselves, nor the judicial community, nor the public have the opportunity to understand the reasons for the decision not to appoint them to the respective posts.
The Lithuanian Judges’ Association respects the constitutional right of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to decide on the appointment of judges, but considers that the exercise of this power must be consistent with the principles of judicial independence, the rule of law and public confidence in the judicial system.
The process of appointing judges must not only ensure that the most suitable candidates are appointed to posts, but also create conditions whereby the public can be confident that suitable candidates are not rejected for reasons unrelated to their professional qualifications, competence or reputation.
One of the essential elements of the principle of judicial independence is that a judge’s professional career and opportunities for advancement must not depend on decisions he or she has taken, or on cases which he or she, or the court in which he or she serves, has heard in the course of proceedings. Judicial independence requires not only effective protection against external influence, but also procedures to prevent the emergence of reasonable doubts regarding possible political or other undue influence on a judge’s career.
This situation raises concerns not only about the legal and professional status of individual candidates, but also about the wider implications for the entire judicial system. This may be seen as a sign that judges’ career prospects depend not only on their competence and reputation, but also on circumstances relating to their judicial activities or the cases they have heard. Such an impression undermines confidence in the independence of the judiciary and may have a negative impact on the implementation of the rule of law as a whole.
The Lithuanian Judges’ Association calls for maximum transparency in judicial appointment procedures. Only a transparent, objective and publicly comprehensible process for the appointment of judges can ensure confidence that judges’ professional careers are based on their competence, reputation and professional merits, and that judicial independence is effectively protected against any undue influence.”
Both unsuccessful candidates (Nerijus Meilutis and Marius Bartninkas) have represented Lithuania in the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) as members of the Lithuanian Council for the Judiciary.