Lithuanian court reopens case against Nemuno Aušra party over car rentals from leader and member

The Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court (LVAT) has reopened a case against the political party Nemuno Aušra over allegations of financial violations involving car rentals from its leader, Remigijus Žemaitaitis, and a party member, Daiva Petkevičienė, LRT reports.

The court consolidated three separate appeals—from the party, Žemaitaitis, and Petkevičienė—all challenging a ruling by the Central Electoral Commission (VRK) that the party committed a serious financial breach by renting vehicles from two of its own members without proper documentation.

In court, the party’s lawyer, Vaidotas Sviderskis, argued that the failure to declare the rental agreements was an “organisational error” rather than a deliberate violation. “The cars were used, trips were made, but the contracts were not declared on time,” he said, adding that the agreements were later formalised and payments completed.

Žemaitaitis, the party’s chairman, claimed the oversight occurred because the party initially lacked funds for administrative expenses but later rectified all documentation. He dismissed accusations of wrongdoing, stating: “If I had done something improper, I would be facing a different case today.” He also cited pre-election campaign trips as proof the cars were used for political activities.

The VRK, however, maintained that the party failed to provide sufficient evidence—such as fuel receipts or travel logs—to prove the vehicles were used exclusively for party business. “The documents submitted later are not enough if there are doubts about how the trips were actually carried out,” said VRK representative Ilona Bondzinskaitė. She described the violation as systematic, lasting over a year and a half, and argued it could not be dismissed as a mere technicality.

VRK Chair Lina Petronienė urged the court to uphold the commission’s decision, calling it “well-founded.” The case is being reviewed by an expanded five-judge panel, a format reserved for complex disputes.

After the hearing, Sviderskis told journalists the case had taken on a “political dimension” due to public scrutiny and the VRK’s stance but insisted it remained a procedural matter. He compared it to routine tax or electoral declarations where corrections are permitted after initial errors.