Transposition of law
This last year the Member States had to transpose 66 new directives, which represents a large increase in their workload compared with the preparation of Scoreboard 2016 (47 directives). This situation has caused great difficulties, which are reflected in the results for most of the Member States. In general, since the transposition deficit has risen, the average delay has decreased because the significant number of recent directives counted heavily in the calculation of the delay for overdue directives.
Transposition deficit: 1.3% (last report: 0.5%) – High increase, more than the double that of the previous period although not among the 10 worst increases. Lithuania has a transposition deficit of 18% for the directives that had to be transposed in 2016 (until 30 November) and 22% for the 9 directives with a transposition date within the 3 months before the cut-off date for calculation. This shows that Lithuania has some difficulties in monitoring the timely transposition of the directives but that these difficulties are not only due to planning problems.
EU average = 1.5%; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5%
Overdue directives: 13 (last report: 5) – including 3 on public procurment. No directive is more than 2 years overdue.
Average delay: 7.7 months (last report: 11.9 months) – Sharp decrease but in a group of 12 Member States that are above the EU average. Lithuania has no long overdue directive and most of its outstanding directives (12/13) have been due for less than 12 months.
EU average = 6.7 months
Compliance deficit: 0.7% (last report: 0.8%) – Slight decrease and now in line with the EU average and close to the 0.5% proposed target.
EU average = 0.7%; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5%
Pending cases: 13 (1 new case and 3 cases closed; last report: 15 pending cases) – Slight decrease. Much better than the EU average number of Single Market-related cases.
(EU average = 24 cases)
Problematic sectors: none in particular
Average case duration: 34.7 months for the 12 cases not yet sent to the Court (last report: 23.0 months) – fifth highest increase among Member States. Lithuania solved 2 very recent cases within the last year. The remaining cases are getting older – there are 3 running for more than 5 years – and have a proportionately greater impact on the calculation of the average duration.
(EU average = 36.9 months)
Compliance with court rulings: no more cases at this stage of the procedure (last report: 3.6 months) – No new cases at this stage.
(EU average = 22.4 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:
- Lithuania has further improved its outstanding performance with almost 100% satisfaction of counterparts.
- Significant improvement has been achieved in answering requests by the deadline agreed in IMI.
- Lithuania is one of the fastest Member States in responding to requests.
National provider: LDB (Lithuanian Labour Exchange)
EURES advisers (nationally): 6
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 the majority of requests for information for the website
- promotional activities; 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 2016 was satisfactory. 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.
Prices in purchasing power parity (PPP)
Domestic prices 2014–15 (in PPP): Prices increased from 0.78 to 0.8 PPPs
Cross-border price developments 2013–14 (in PPP): Prices increased from 1.24 to 1.44 PPPs
Transit time performance D+1:
Performance varied between 81.1% and 90% in the period under review.
Lithuanian performance target = 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 2015, both indicators increased, trade integration for services at the highest rate in the EU.
Trade in goods and services
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
In 2015, Lithuania's share of EU FDI inflows increased, the share of FDI outflows decreased slightly. The other indicators remained unchanged.
||Share of EU FDI Flows
||Share of EU FDI Stocks
|% FDI 2015