Prokuratūra searches home and office of Vilnius city administration director

Vilnius prosecutors have conducted searches at the home and office of Adomas Bužinskas, director of the Vilnius City Administration, as part of a pre-trial investigation into potential official misconduct, LRT and BNS report.

The searches, carried out by the Vilnius County Chief Police Commissariat’s Economic Crimes Investigation Board, follow a decision to question Bužinskas as a special witness—a legal status for individuals who may provide testimony about their own potentially criminal actions. The investigation is examining allegations of abuse of office and dereliction of duty under Lithuania’s Criminal Code.

Bužinskas confirmed the searches in a Facebook post, stating that police conducted them at his home and office on Tuesday. “Preliminary information suggests this is because I did not attend a police interview regarding the continued use of a street standard,” he wrote. However, he claimed he never received a summons. A search of his car yielded no evidence.

The Vilnius County Police confirmed no formal charges have been filed against Bužinskas. The pre-trial investigation is led by prosecutors from the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office specialising in organised crime and corruption.

Bužinskas, currently on leave in Spain, linked the case to a 2019 street infrastructure standard he signed as deputy director, which a 2024 court ruling later declared invalid for procedural reasons. “The administration was informed of the court’s decision, and we reminded staff not to apply the standard,” he said, adding that he had searched his personal and work emails but found no interview notice.

Police seized only a tablet belonging to his grandmother during the search. Bužinskas stated he would have attended any interview voluntarily and expressed respect for law enforcement’s professionalism.

In June 2024, Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Vilnius street standard lacked legal force due to improper publication but declined to order its registration, citing judicial overreach concerns.