Lithuanian prime minister’s advisor suspended over alleged EU-funded empty training sessions

Lithuania’s Special Investigation Service (STT) has referred information about allegedly fraudulent EU-funded farmer training sessions, organised by a company linked to Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė’s advisor Vigilijus Jukna, to the Prosecutor General’s Office for assessment, LRT reports.

Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė has suspended Jukna from his role as her public advisor following a journalistic investigation by news portal 15min, which revealed that training sessions for farmers—funded by over €200,000 in EU money—were held in empty lecture halls. According to project rules, sessions with fewer than 12 participants should have been cancelled.

The National Paying Agency had already allocated more than two-thirds of the €300,000 EU funding despite the apparent lack of attendance. The training was formally organised by Jukna’s company Mokslinės paslaugos (Scientific Services) and the Agriculture Academy of Vytautas Magnus University (VDU), where he also served as chancellor until his removal this week.

VDU announced it had launched an internal investigation and temporarily removed Jukna from his position. “Pending the commission’s findings, Vigilijus Jukna is relieved of his duties as chancellor,” the university stated. Rector Ineta Dabašinskienė emphasised that VDU “does not tolerate any dishonest or unethical conduct,” adding that transparency and academic integrity were core institutional values.

The STT confirmed it had forwarded the case to prosecutors to determine whether the allegations fall under the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, given potential harm to EU financial interests. Jukna previously served as an agricultural advisor under former Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas and was a member of the Seimas Rural Affairs Committee from 2020 to 2024.

Seimas Speaker Juozas Olekas condemned the situation as “deeply concerning,” while President Gitanas Nausėda urged Šimonytė to examine the investigation’s findings closely, stating that if proven true, the case would “not honour the Government Chancellery.”