Transposition of law
In 2016, the Member States had to transpose 66 new directives, which represents a large increase in their workload compared with 2015 (47 directives) and 2017 (39 directives). This unusual workload caused great difficulties in transposing directives on time, as a result the transposition deficit of most Member States increased dramatically. The current Scoreboard shows that the situation is returning to normal, even if those difficulties are still reflected in the results of several Member States.
Transposition deficit: 0.8 % (last report: 1.3 %) – High decrease by 0.5 percentage point and back under the 1 % threshold. Nevertheless, Lithuania has a transposition deficit of 36 % for the 14 directives with a transposition date within the
6 months before the cut-off date for calculation (1.6.2017–30.11.2017). This shows that this Member State has some difficulties in monitoring the timely transposition of the directives, although with a moderate delay (see below).
EU average = 0.9 %; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5 %
Overdue directives: 8 (last report: 13) including 3 on financial services (= 38 % of the backlog). No directive is more than 2 years overdue.
Average delay: 5.7 months (last report: 7.7 months) – Decrease by 2 months and in a group of 8 Member States whose delay shortened. Lithuania has no long overdue directive (due for
2 years or more) and all its outstanding directives have been due for less than 12 months.
EU average = 8.7 months
Conformity deficit: 0.7 % (last report: 0.7 %) – Stable situation, close to the EU average.
EU average = 0.6 %; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5 %
Pending cases: 13 (2 new cases and 2 cases closed; last report: 13 pending cases) – Stable number of Single Market-related cases. Much better than the EU average and one of the Member States with the fewest cases.
(EU average = 24 cases)
Problematic sectors: none in particular.
Average case duration: 42.5 months for the 12 cases not yet sent to the Court (last report: 34.7 months) – Sharp increase by 19.5 months within 2 years and now above the EU duration. Lithuania resolved 2 quite recent cases within the last year. The remaining cases are getting older – in particular 6 running for between 4 and 8 years – and have a proportionately greater impact on the calculation of the average duration.
(EU average = 39.8 months)
Compliance with court rulings: no case at this stage of the procedure and closed in the 5 last years (last report: idem).
(EU average = 23.6 months)
Lithuania’s average response time respects the 70-day benchmark in EU Pilot.
Internal Market Information System
Performance – Lithuania continues to perform very well:
- Performance for all 5 indicators is above the EU average.
- Lithuania performed well in answering requests, taking on average 7 days to reply.
- Satisfaction rates among counterparts remains very high, close to 100 %.
- Lithuania’s involvement in requests concerning posted workers was moderate in 2017: only 18 requests were sent and 55 were received.
National provider: LDB (Lithuanian Labour Exchange)
Performance: could be improved by providing more vacancies held by the PES to the EURES portal.
National portal in LT and EN: www.epaslaugos.lt
Record for this period
- limited participation in Editorial Board work
- responsive to all requests for information for the website
- promotional activities and back-linking from national websites to Your Europe
- ensure representation by the same people on the Editorial Board
- provide information, when requested, on how the country applies Single Market rules
- raise awareness about Your Europe within national administrations and among potential end users
- link national websites to Your Europe
Make an effort to:
- attend the Board meetings twice a year
Overall, Lithuania’s performance in 2017 was average. For further information and the methodology applied, please see the section on Public procurement performance.
For easier analysis, EU countries are divided into 3 groups on the basis of absolute GDP per capita and EU accession date (method used in EU postal sector study (2010–13) :
Western – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and UK
Southern – Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain
Eastern – Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Transit time performance D+1:
Performance varied between 81.1 % and 90 % in the period under review.
The Lithuanian performance target is 85 %.
For some countries, the reference figures for the previous period may differ slightly from the last Scoreboard, due to subsequent updates that they provided.
Trade in goods and services
Lithuania shows an above EU average level of trade integration in the Single Market for goods. Trade integration for services is only slightly above EU average. In 2016, trade integration for goods decreased whereas trade integration for services increase at the second highest rate in the EU.
Trade in goods and services
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
In 2016, Lithuania's share of EU FDI inflows decreased slightly. The other indicators remained unchanged.
||Share of EU FDI Flows
||Share of EU FDI Stocks
|% FDI 2016