On 10 November 2005, the Parliament

      adopted Law No X-382 on Supplementing of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law

      with Articles 418 and 419 and on Amending of Articles 85, 88, 187, 233, 2591, 262 and 320 thereof. Article 418 of the Code sets forth administrative liability of employers or their authorised persons for non-application of statutory guarantees to seconded employees or

      for the failure to provide, in the prescribed

      procedure, the information on such applicable guarantees to the territorial department of the State Labour Inspectorate. Depending on a

      particular composition of an offence, the

      penalty stipulated under the mentioned Article of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law will range from 400 to 2,000 Litas. Article 419 of the Code sets forth administrative liability of employers or their authorised persons for non-assurance of guarantees for the

      representatives of employees as provided for in the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Participation of Employees in Decision Making in European Companies. Depending on a particular composition of an offence, the

      penalty stipulated under the mentioned Article of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law will range from 400 to 2,500 Litas. The Supreme Court of Lithuania in its 2 November 2005 ruling in civil case No 3K-3-532/2005 L. Karuþienë v AB Lietuvos draudimas has ruled that a rough breach of the

      office duties under the Labour Code constitutes a breach of labour discipline resulting in an infringement of the provisions of laws and other legal acts directly regulating an employee's

      work, or another offence in respect of the office duties or the labour discipline. The Labour Code also contains a list of rough breaches of the office duties which, however, is not finite. Rough breaches of the office duties will include not only breaches listed in sub-paragraphs 1-10

      of paragraph 2 of Article 235 of the Labour Code but also other offences resulting in the breach of the labour discipline. The list of such other offences is not provided in the Labour Code. An offence which according to its nature,

      consequences, the degree of an employee's fault and other relevant circumstances may be qualified as an offence resulting in rough breach

      of the labour discipline, will also be considered as a rough breach of the office duties. In cases where an employee who is dismissed from work

      for such rough breach of his office duties

      contests the lawfulness of termination of the employment contract in judicial procedure, an employer should provide evidence (legal reasoning) justifying the qualification of an offence as rough, while the court, in view of particular circumstances of the case, each time

      should assess whether an employer has

      reasonably qualified the committed offence as a rough offence.