{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Gathering Evidence in Aid of Fo"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Ellex Valiunas","Agne Kisieliauskaite"]
[null,null,"Miroslav Nosevič"]
[]
[]
["Gathering Evidence in Aid of Foreign Litigation Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Gathering Evidence in Aid of Fo","index":1,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Lithuania"]
["Lex Mundi Gathering Evidence in Aid of Foreign Litigation Guide"]
["Does your jurisdiction permit gathering evidence in aid of foreign litigation?","Yes. Several international, bilateral treaties, EU rules and domestic procedural rules (see our response to \"\nIs your jurisdiction a party to the Hague Evidence Convention? Are there other statutory requirements for obtaining evidence in aid of foreign litigation? Please indicate the relevant statutes.\") obliges the Republic of Lithuania to provide legal assistance in gathering evidence in aid of foreign litigation. The procedure left outside the scope of these international and/or EU instruments is regulated by national procedural rules on evidence gathering.\n"]
["Is your jurisdiction a party to the Hague Evidence Convention? Are there other statutory requirements for obtaining evidence in aid of foreign litigation?  Please indicate the relevant statutes."," Yes, Lithuania is a party to the Hague Evidence Convention. \n\n Also, the following statutory requirements might be applicable: \n\n \n\t Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters is applicable in Lithuania, as an EU member state (note: the Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 will be repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 as of 1 July 2022 ). This regulation applies in civil or commercial matters where the court of a member state, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that state, requests: (i) the competent court of another member state to take evidence; or (ii) to take evidence directly in another member state. According to Article 21(1) , this regulation, in relation to matters to which it applies, prevails over other provisions contained in bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements concluded by the member states and, in particular, the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters , in relations between the member states party thereto. \n\t Bilateral treaties on legal assistance have been concluded between the Republic of Lithuania and the following countries: the Russian Federation, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia. According to these bilateral treaties, requests for legal assistance, including that in the area of evidence gathering, are performed via the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. Article 32 of the Hague Evidence Convention provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 29 and 31 , the Convention shall not derogate from conventions containing provisions on the matters covered by this Convention to which the contracting states are or shall become parties. Lithuanian courts follow the bilateral treaties and, in the absence of such treaties, the Hague Evidence Convention applies. \n\t The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania (the \" CPC \"), namely (i) Article 802  generally states that a request for legal aid from a court of a foreign state or another institution shall be executed by the courts of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with the law of the Republic of Lithuania. The court of the Republic of Lithuania to which the request for legal aid has been forwarded may apply other rules than those provided by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania on the initiative of the requesting foreign court or other institution unless prohibited by the law of the Republic of Lithuania; and (ii) Article 806 which provides that the courts of the Republic of Lithuania may secure evidence in Lithuania if it is necessary for the adoption of a court decision in a foreign state. The request for securing evidence is made to the district court in whose territory the evidence required for securing is available. Domestic rules apply only if international treaties and/or EU regulation is not applicable. \n \n"]
["Do requests for gathering evidence require approval by a court or administrative body?  Please indicate the appropriate forum for making such requests."," Requests for gathering evidence may be carried out in several ways: \n\n \n\t Gathering of evidence without Lithuanian court’s or administrative body’s intervention \n \n\n \n\t To collect evidence in Lithuania, a party to foreign legal proceedings may use the legal assistance of an advocate (attorney-at-law) based in Lithuania. Pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Lithuanian Law on the Bar , an advocate (attorney-at-law), in the pursuit of professional activities, has the right to obtain information and data, including special categories of personal data, documents, and copies thereof required for the provision of legal services and stored in or managed by state and municipal institutions, as well as registers and state information systems. In addition, Article 44(2) of the Law on the Bar provides that an advocate (attorney-at-law) may independently collect data that is needed for the provision of legal services and which may be obtained by an advocate without applying procedural coercive measures, i.e. to obtain from persons the necessary documents or copies thereof or any other information needed for the provision of legal services. No approval for such evidence gathering by a court or administrative body is required. \n \n\n \n\t Gathering of evidence with Lithuanian court’s or administrative body’s intervention \n \n\n \n\t Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 provides for two methods of taking of evidence: (i) the taking of evidence by the requested court, following a request transmitted directly from the requesting court to the requested court. The requested court may refuse the request for taking of evidence only on the limited grounds listed in the regulation (see our response to \" Does there need to be any showing that the information sought is allowable in the foreign jurisdiction in which the action is pending? \"); and (ii) the direct taking of evidence by the requesting court. In the case of direct taking of evidence an authorization by the Member State in which the evidence is to be taken is required. \n\t Where the requesting party is not from the EU Member State, the requests to gather evidence in Lithuania for civil and commercial proceedings may be carried out in accordance with the Hague Evidence Convention . Under this Convention , in civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a contracting state may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another contracting state, by means of a Letter of Request , to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act. A contracting state shall designate a central authority that will undertake to receive Letters of Request coming from a judicial authority of another contracting state and transmit them to the authority competent to execute them (the central authority designated by Lithuania is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania). Upon receipt of the request, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania forwards it to the appropriate legal authority. The Ministry of Justice of Lithuania acts as an intermediary between the legal authorities of the contracting states, i.e. it receives the Letter of Request , examines formal/procedural matters related to the Letter of Request and transmits it to the competent authority (in most cases to the court), which, upon receipt of the Letter of Request , assesses whether or not it can be executed in accordance with the Lithuanian legislation. \n\t If the proceedings take place in a country that has concluded a bilateral legal assistance treaty with the Republic of Lithuania, the taking of evidence is carried out in accordance with such treaty. Most of the bilateral legal assistance treaties signed by the Republic of Lithuania stipulate that legal assistance includes the performance of procedural acts provided for by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, such as interviewing the parties, the defendants, the witnesses, and the experts, carrying out forensic examinations, and the handing over of physical evidence. In accordance with the bilateral agreements on legal assistance, requests are submitted through the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, which, similarly to the procedure under the Hague Evidence Convention , passes the request to the competent authority (in most cases to the court). \n \n"]
["What types of information can be sought?  Requests for Documents?  Written questions? Depositions?"," The Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 does not provide a list of evidence that can be gathered in accordance with this regulation. Nevertheless, the practice guide on the application of this regulation provides that while the concept of “evidence” is not defined in the regulation, it includes for instance hearings of witnesses of fact, of the parties, of experts, the production of documents, verifications, the establishment of facts, expertise on family or child welfare. \n\n In general, the requested court executes the request in accordance with its own law ( Article10(2) ). If this procedure of the member state of the requesting court is incompatible with the law of the member state of the requested court or by reason of major practical difficulties, the requested court can refuse to comply with such a requirement ( Article10(3) ). Consequently, the allowance of information sought is regulated by the Lithuanian Procedural Law. \n\n Under Lithuanian law, requests for documents and written questions would not raise any major problems. According to the regulation, such requests would be transmitted by the court before which the proceedings are commenced or contemplated, directly to the competent Lithuanian court, or forwarded, in exceptional cases, at the request of a requesting court, to the competent Lithuanian court. \n\n While the institute of deposition is not known under Lithuania law, certain alternatives for questioning a witness could be available: \n\n \n\t a party to foreign legal proceedings may use the legal assistance of an advocate (attorney-at-law) based in Lithuania, who may independently question a witness with his or her consent ( Article 44(2) of Lithuanian Law on the Bar ); \n\t alternatively, requests for the hearing of witnesses could be executed by a requested court. In this instance, a party to foreign proceedings could retain a legal counsel in Lithuania for the purpose of such counsel participating in a hearing of a witness and/or questioning the witness with the court’s permission. Audio recordings are made on the court’s initiative, but video recordings would require the court’s authorization. Furthermore, the requesting court may ask the requested court to use communications technology at the hearing of witnesses, in particular by using videoconference and teleconference (see our response to \" If your jurisdiction allows depositions, may they be conducted remotely (by videoconference, Zoom etc.) \").   \n \n\n The Hague Evidence Convention also does not provide a list of evidence that can be gathered in accordance with this Convention. Article 9 provides that the judicial authority which executes a Letter of Request shall apply its own law as to the methods and procedures to be followed. However, it will follow a request of the requesting authority that a special method or procedure be followed, unless this is incompatible with the internal law of the state of execution or is impossible of performance by reason of its internal practice and procedure or by reason of practical difficulties. \n\n Consequently, as in the case of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 requests for documents and written questions should be obtained/executed without any major obstacles. In these instances a judicial authority of a contracting state may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another contracting state, by means of a Letter of Request , to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act. As regards deposition, the alternative ways of conducting deposition/questioning a witness are discussed above. \n"]
["Who bears the burden of showing whether any privileges apply?"," If Lithuania receives a request for gathering evidence, it will do in accordance with national regulations. Privileges are explicitly enshrined in the CPC , and the burden of showing any privilege lies within a person relying on the said privilege. As regards the specific privileges, the CPC , for example, provides for the following: \n\n \n\t Article 188 of the CPC provides that a party or third person is entitled to withdraw from examination or from answering particular questions if it would constitute testifying against oneself, family members or close relatives. \n\t Article 189 of the CPC provides that the following persons may not be interviewed as witnesses: 1) representatives in civil proceedings or defense counsel in criminal proceedings about circumstances obtained by them in the performance of their duties of the representative or defense counsel; 2) persons, which are unable to understand relevant circumstances or give fair evidence due to physical or mental defects; 3) clergy about circumstances obtained by them in the confessional; 4) the medical profession about circumstances constituting their professional secrets; 5) other persons defined by laws. \n\t Article 191(2) of the CPC provides that a person may refuse to testify in cases when testifying would constitute evidence against oneself, family members or close relatives. \n\t Article 199(3) of the CPC provides that persons indicated in Article 189(2) of the CPC (see above) may abstain from submission of written evidence if submission thereof would disclose circumstances preventing them from being examined as witnesses. If the previously mentioned circumstances constitute a part of written evidence, a court shall be provided with a duly certified excerpt from the written evidence where parts describing the mentioned circumstances will be omitted. In addition, a person shall not be obligated to submit written evidence in cases described by Articles 188 and 191(2) of the CPC (see above). \n\t Article 10(2) of the CPC provides that upon passing a judgment or final ruling on court proceedings in a public court session, the court shall have the right, at the request of participants in a proceeding or on its own initiative, to define by a motivated ruling that case matter or a part thereof is not public when it is necessary to protect a private, family life or property, keep information about a person's health confidential, also when there are grounds to deem that a state, office, professional, commercial or other secret protected by laws may be disclosed. A separate appeal against the court ruling, which denied the request, may be submitted. Furthermore, Article 10(4) of the CPC states that a case file constituting a state or professional or commercial secret could be held to be confidential upon a request by a person providing the information in question. \n \n"]
["Does there need to be any showing that the information sought is allowable in the foreign jurisdiction in which the action is pending?\n"," Lithuanian courts while gathering evidence with requests received in accordance with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 , the Hague Evidence Convention or bilateral treaties are operating on the presumption that such requests are issued by the foreign court which has examined the allowability of information sought, thus Lithuanian courts do not additionally require to show that the information sought is allowable in the state of the requesting court. \n\n However, the mentioned legal instruments list certain grounds on which Lithuanian courts can inspect/refuse to execute requests: \n\n \n\t Pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 , a request for the hearing of a person shall not be executed when the person concerned claims the right to refuse to give evidence or to be prohibited from giving evidence: (i) under the law of the Member State of the requested court; or (ii) under the law of the Member State of the requesting court, and such right has been specified in the request, or, if need be, at the instance of the requested court, has been confirmed by the requesting court. \n\t Thus, for example, a Lithuanian court would not execute a request for hearing a person if testifying would constitute evidence against himself/herself, his/her family members or close relatives ( Article 191(2) of the CPC ). \n\t In a similar sense, Article 11 of the Hague Evidence Convention provides that in the execution of a Letter of Request the person concerned may refuse to give evidence in so far as he has a privilege or duty to refuse to give the evidence: (i) under the law of the state of execution; or (ii) under the law of the state of origin, and the privilege or duty has been specified in the letter, or, at the instance of the requested authority, has been otherwise confirmed to that authority by the requesting authority. \n\t Finally, under the bilateral treaties, a general rule is that legal assistance can be refused if: legal aid shall not be granted if its provision would undermine the sovereignty or security, the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of the requested contracting party, or would be contrary to fundamental principles of its law. \n \n"]
["If your jurisdiction allows depositions, may they be conducted remotely (by videoconference, Zoom etc.)"," As depositions, as such, are not explicitly allowed and, consequently, regulated by Lithuanian law, certain alternatives for questioning a witness are available (see our response to \" What types of information can be sought? Requests for Documents? Written questions? Depositions? \"): \n\n \n\t If a witness is questioned voluntarily and without the involvement of a Lithuanian court, parties involved may choose any remote communication means they agree on and see as fitting. \n\t If a witness is questioned before a court with the involvement of a retained Lithuanian counsel, the court will follow national procedural rules. According to Article 1752 of the CPC , the participation of the parties in court proceedings and the questioning of a witness may be ensured by the use of information and electronic communication technologies (videoconferencing, teleconferencing, etc.). Information and electronic communication technologies (video conferencing, teleconferencing, etc.) may be used to gather evidence. \n \n\n The use of these technologies is further regulated by the European Commission for Effective Justice Guidelines of 30 June 2021 on videoconferencing in court proceedings . In addition, the procedure for remote hearings using videoconferencing technology in proceedings is in detail regulated by the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1R-309 of 7 December 2012 approving the description of the procedure for the use of videoconferencing and teleconferencing technologies in civil and administrative cases ; the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania of 31 May 2021 No. 1R-183 approving the description of the procedure for the use of videoconferencing technologies in criminal cases ; the Minute Resolution of the Judicial Council of 27 August 2021. \n"]
["Has your jurisdiction adopted any “blocking statutes” that limit the extent to which residents in your jurisdiction may give evidence in a foreign court’s civil or criminal proceedings?"," The residents of Lithuanian jurisdiction are free to give evidence in foreign proceedings of their own will. To our best knowledge, no “ Blocking Statutes ” limiting the right to give evidence in foreign proceedings have been adopted in Lithuania. \n\n It should be also noted that no foreign court has jurisdiction in Lithuania to directly compel or obligate a Lithuanian resident to give evidence or a deposition. However, the taking of evidence may be carried out in accordance with international treaties and/or EU regulations: \n\n \n\t According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 , the applicable law to coercive measures for executing a request is determined in accordance with the law of the member state of the requested court to the extent that it provides for the execution of a request made for the same purpose by the national authorities of that member state or one of the parties concerned ( Article 13 ). The direct taking of evidence may only take place if it can be performed on a voluntary basis without the need for coercive measures ( Article 17 (2) ). \n\t The Hague Evidence Convention enables a foreign court to invoke Lithuania’s authority's compulsory powers, in such manner evidence is made accessible to foreign courts. The Hague Evidence Convention establishes two ways of cooperation between state parties for taking evidence in a foreign jurisdiction, via (i) Letters of Request ; and (ii) through diplomatic consular agents or commissioners. Compulsory collection of evidence can only be carried out in accordance with the national law ( lex fori ).   \n \n"]
["May citizens residing in your jurisdiction voluntarily give evidence in a foreign proceeding?  If not, what procedure must be followed before they can give evidence?  If such restrictions exist, are they enforced in practice?","\"Has your jurisdiction adopted any “blocking statutes” that limit the extent to which residents in your jurisdiction may give evidence in a foreign court’s civil or criminal proceedings?\" and \"May citizens residing in your jurisdiction voluntarily give evidence in a foreign proceeding? If not, what procedure must be followed before they can give evidence? If such restrictions exist, are they enforced in practice?\" are interrelated. As stated in answer to \"\nHas your jurisdiction adopted any “blocking statutes” that limit the extent to which residents in your jurisdiction may give evidence in a foreign court’s civil or criminal proceedings?\", Lithuanian citizens are free to give evidence in foreign proceedings of their own volition. There are no specific legal procedures for the voluntary submission of evidence in foreign proceedings.\nConsequently, evidence in a specific case would be given in accordance with the domestic procedural rules of a court hearing a case.  \n"]
["Would your answers differ materially if the foreign proceeding is arbitration, and if so how?","No. The \nLithuanian Law on Commercial Arbitration is based on the \nUNCITRAL Model law and the courts in Lithuania assist the arbitral tribunals (both with the place of arbitration in Lithuania and abroad) in taking evidence.\nThe Vilnius District Court may order the production of evidence or examine a witness residing in Lithuania and apply coercive measures if the witness does not comply with the court order provided that: (i) such a request to the court is submitted by one of the parties to arbitration; and (ii) such a request was granted by the arbitral tribunal.\nA party also has a right to ask the domestic court to order a party to produce evidence before the commencement of the arbitration. The party has to prove the urgency of the interim measure, namely, that the evidence may be lost or destroyed if not applied urgently\n"]