Lietuvos teisės aktai

SECONDARY TOOL - change tracking, for people who specifically need it. It does NOT state what the law says. If the user's question is what a provision says or requires on a date, call get_article or get_act_version instead: the consolidated edition already has every one of these changes folded into it, and reassembling the law from a change list gets it wrong. Audit a citation. Given an act, an article and the date it was cited on, report whether that article has changed or been repealed by the as-at date, and which amendments did it. This is the tool for reviewing existing work: a contract clause citing an article, a memo written last year, a policy referencing a provision that has since been renumbered. It answers the question a lawyer actually has about a document already written, which is not 'what does it say' but 'is what I wrote still true'. To then read the current provision, call get_article. This tool answers for ONE point in time and no other. The same provision has had different text in different years, so an answer is only true for the date it was asked for; quote the validity window whenever you quote the text. Both dates are required. The cited date says which text the user relied on; the as-at date says when you are checking. Neither is assumed. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. In particular, an unconfirmed answer here is NOT a clean bill of health - do not tell the user the citation still stands unless the reply says so. Billable: one unit, charged only if a determination is actually returned.

check_still_valid

SECONDARY TOOL - change tracking, for people who specifically need it. It does NOT state what the law says. If the user's question is what a provision says or requires on a date, call get_article or get_act_version instead: the consolidated edition already has every one of these changes folded into it, and reassembling the law from a change list gets it wrong. Compare the edition in force on one date with the edition in force on another, reporting what was added, removed and changed, article by article where the structure allows it, with the wording on both sides. Use it for 'show me exactly how this clause was reworded', for reviewing a document against a later redaction, or when a user needs the before-and-after text of an amendment. For 'what does this say now', read the edition instead - it already contains the outcome of every change this tool lists. This tool compares two dates, and EACH endpoint is ONE point in time. Neither is assumed and neither defaults to today; the register held different text on each of them, and the result is only true for the pair you asked about. Report both dates whenever you report the result. If EITHER date cannot be resolved to a confirmed edition, the whole comparison is refused rather than half-answered: a diff against an edition we are unsure of is a list of changes that may not have happened, which is more misleading than no list. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. The window on a comparison is the LATER edition's, and the answer is only as well verified as its weaker endpoint. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Billable: one unit, charged only if a comparison is actually returned.

diff_versions

Resolve a reference to a Lithuanian act - a short handle, a title, an act number or an ELI URI - to a single catalogue entry with its identifiers, type, status and how many consolidated editions are held. A LOOKUP STEP, NOT AN ANSWER. This tool returns NO statute text. An act as such has no text - only a dated edition of it does - so to read or quote anything you must call get_act_version or get_article with the date the question is about, which returns the law as it stood on that date with every amendment already folded in. Use this FIRST whenever you are not certain how the user's wording maps onto an act, then pass the returned handle to the tools that need one. An ambiguous reference is refused with the candidates listed rather than resolved to the closest match, because citing the wrong act is the failure this service exists to prevent. A NAME CAN BELONG TO MORE THAN ONE ACT. 'Darbo kodeksas' is act IX-926 until 2017-07-01 and act XII-2603 from that day onward; the Administrative Offences Code changed the same way at 2017-01-01. Pass `as_of` whenever the user's question is about a particular time, or the reference will be refused as ambiguous - which is the correct outcome, since answering a 2010 question from the 2016 code gives a plausible rule from a statute that did not exist yet. The catalogue is curated and small (roughly fifty of the acts people actually ask about) rather than a mirror of all 476,633 register documents: a full-text search of the register returns mostly AMENDING acts, and an assistant handed 'Law amending Article 58 of the Labour Code' instead of the Labour Code will cite the wrong instrument while looking entirely correct. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Free: this call does not consume allowance.

find_act

Search the ARTICLES of one Lithuanian act for the words you are looking for, and get back their numbers. Use this whenever you know the act but not the article number - which is almost always. WHY THIS EXISTS. Every other tool here addresses an ACT. Without this one an assistant that does not already know the number has two moves, and both are bad: guess the number and check it somewhere else, which is how wrong citations are made, or pull the entire code into context and read it there, which costs a hundred thousand tokens and still leaves you deciding which article was relevant. IT RETURNS ADDRESSES, NOT LAW. Each hit gives the article number, its heading and a short fragment showing where the words sit - enough to choose between candidates and deliberately too little to quote. THEN CALL `get_article` for the text, which arrives with its validity window and its register URL. Do not answer a user from these fragments: they are cut mid-provision and carry no context. ONE EDITION, THE ONE IN FORCE ON `as_of`. Searching every edition at once would report words that were true in 2019 beside words true today, which is exactly the undated-text failure this service exists to prevent. WORDS ARE MATCHED ON THEIR STEMS, so `ginklas` finds `ginklo` and `ginklais`. Name the subject in one to three words as the statute would write it. EVERY word must appear in an article for it to be a hit, so more words narrow rather than widen. NO HIT IS A STATEMENT ABOUT THIS ACT ON THIS DATE, not about Lithuanian law. The subject may be governed by a different act entirely; `find_act` will say which acts this catalogue carries. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. For this tool that page is the edition the search ran against - the same edition `get_article` will quote from, so a reader who opens it sees the words in the context the fragments were cut out of. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Free: this call does not consume allowance - it is the lookup you make before the question you actually have.

search_articles

Return the complete text of a Lithuanian act as it stood on ONE date, together with the window that text is in force for and the register page a reader can open to check it. WHAT YOU GET: the law as it stood on date X, with every amendment already folded in. This is the register's own consolidated edition (suvestine redakcija), which is what a Lithuanian lawyer reads and treats as the law on that date. You do not have to find amendments, apply them, or reconstruct anything - the text returned is already the finished article. This tool answers for ONE point in time and no other. The same provision has had different text in different years, so an answer is only true for the date it was asked for; quote the validity window whenever you quote the text. An act that has never been amended has no separate consolidated edition, because the register only creates one once something changes. For those acts the original text IS the law in force, and it is returned with the act's own in-force window. That is a normal answer, not a degraded one. Prefer get_article when the user asks about a specific provision: a whole code is tens of thousands of words and burying the relevant article in it makes a misquote more likely, not less. If the reply carries a warning that a later edition takes effect on a given date, pass that on. 'Correct today, changing on 1 January' is the single most useful thing this service can tell a user, and it is the thing the register itself makes hardest to see. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Billable: one unit, charged only if text is actually returned.

get_act_version

Return the text of ONE article of ONE Lithuanian act as it stood on ONE date, with its heading, the amendments already applied to it, and the validity window of the edition it was taken from. THIS IS THE DEFAULT TOOL: reach for it whenever a user asks what a specific provision says, requires or allows. WHAT YOU GET: the law as it stood on date X, with every amendment already folded in. This is the register's own consolidated edition (suvestine redakcija), which is what a Lithuanian lawyer reads and treats as the law on that date. You do not have to find amendments, apply them, or reconstruct anything - the text returned is already the finished article. The amendments listed alongside an article are its HISTORY - they are already in the wording you are reading, and applying them again would corrupt it. This tool answers for ONE point in time and no other. The same provision has had different text in different years, so an answer is only true for the date it was asked for; quote the validity window whenever you quote the text. An act that has never been amended has no separate consolidated edition, because the register only creates one once something changes. For those acts the original text IS the law in force, and it is returned with the act's own in-force window. That is a normal answer, not a degraded one. An article that has been repealed is returned WITH its repeal date rather than hidden: the text is what the edition records, and it does not state the law in force after that date. Say so if you quote it. Article numbers are matched exactly and are strings, not numbers - see the argument description. If the article cannot be located, the reply lists nearby article numbers so you can correct the reference rather than guess at it. Note that a Lithuanian code is enacted by a short approval act with the code annexed under PATVIRTINTA, so one document can hold two independent numbering schemes - the Labour Code document has an article 3 in the approval act (how the code applies to existing relationships) and an article 3 in the code itself (principles of labour law). An unqualified number means the CODE's; pass `body` to read the approval act's commencement and transitional provisions. Where a number is ambiguous even so, it is reported with both headings rather than resolved to whichever comes first in the file. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Billable: one unit, charged only if text is actually returned.

get_article

SECONDARY TOOL - change tracking, for people who specifically need it. It does NOT state what the law says. If the user's question is what a provision says or requires on a date, call get_article or get_act_version instead: the consolidated edition already has every one of these changes folded into it, and reassembling the law from a change list gets it wrong. Report editions and amendments of an act that have been adopted but have not taken effect as at the given date - the changes that are coming. Use it before advising on anything forward-looking: a contract that will run into next year, a policy being drafted now, a compliance deadline. An answer that is correct today and wrong in January is a trap, and this is the tool that opens it. This tool answers for ONE point in time and no other: the changes pending as at 2026-01-01 are a different set from the changes pending today, and 'upcoming' with no date would silently mean 'upcoming from whenever this server thinks now is'. Quote the date you asked for whenever you report the result. 'Nothing upcoming' and 'we cannot see what is upcoming' are reported differently, and the difference matters. If the reply is NOT ANSWERED, do not tell the user that nothing is changing - tell them that pending changes could not be checked. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Free: this call does not consume allowance.

upcoming_changes

List the ANNEXES (priedai) published with a Lithuanian act: the rate tables, tariff schedules, coefficients, forms and templates that are issued as separate files rather than as articles. Some norms live only in an annex - the article says 'the coefficient set out in Annex 2' and the number itself is in the file. EXPECT 'NONE' FOR MOST ACTS, AND THAT IS A RESULT. Measured over the whole register on 2026-08-25: of 121,091 annexes, almost all hang off ministerial orders, municipal decisions and government resolutions - subordinate legislation this service does not carry - and only 10 hang off a statute at all. So for the base acts served here the usual honest answer is that the register publishes no annexes, which tells the user the figure they are looking for is in the articles and not in a file they have been unable to find. Report it as that, not as a shortcoming. WHAT YOU GET, AND THE LIMIT IS THE POINT. For each annex: what the register calls it, what kind of file it is, what a text extraction of that kind of file can get wrong, how much extracted text this service holds, when the register last updated that row, and the register's own URL for the file. Give the user that URL - it is the answer. THESE ANNEXES ARE NOT DATED AND CANNOT BE. This is the one place in this service where a point-in-time answer is impossible rather than merely unavailable, and it is a fact about the register, not about our coverage: an annex row is keyed to the ACT, not to a consolidated edition, carries no validity window, and the register's own address for it has no version in it. So there is NO date you can pass that would tell you which edition an annex belongs to, and this tool will not guess. Do not present an annex, or any figure taken out of one, as the text in force on a date. Say that the register does not date its annexes and hand over the link. THE TEXT ITSELF IS NOT RETURNED, deliberately. What the register holds is a machine extraction from a docx, xlsx, pdf or image, and it is not statute text: a spreadsheet annex extracts with its column headings replaced by 'Unnamed: 0' and its empty cells by the word 'nan', and an image annex has no text in it at all. A figure lifted out of that is a figure separated from the row and column that say what it measures. The file is one click away and it is the honest answer. 'NO ANNEXES' AND 'WE HAVE NOT LOOKED' ARE DIFFERENT REPLIES AND YOU MUST NOT MERGE THEM. An answer carrying `none_found: true` and a sweep date means the register publishes no annexes for this act - a complete answer, and a useful one, because it tells the user the figure they want is in the articles. NOT ANSWERED means the annex sweep has never covered this act, which is not a finding that it has none. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. For this tool that page is the act's own register page, which lists its annexes; each annex additionally carries its own file URL. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Free: this call does not consume allowance.

list_attachments

SECONDARY TOOL - change tracking, for people who specifically need it. It does NOT state what the law says. If the user's question is what a provision says or requires on a date, call get_article or get_act_version instead: the consolidated edition already has every one of these changes folded into it, and reassembling the law from a change list gets it wrong. Return the act's whole edition timeline: every consolidated redaction held, the dates each one is in force between, how each window was verified, and - stated explicitly - every gap and overlap in the timeline. It carries dates, not text. Use it to choose a date before asking for text, to show a user how often a provision has moved, or to explain why a particular date cannot be answered. The defects are reported rather than smoothed over: where two editions both claim a day, or no edition covers one, the correct answer for that day is that we do not know which text applied, and a clean-looking list would hide it. Both ends of every window are INCLUSIVE. An edition shown as 2026-06-07 to 2026-10-31 is in force on 31 October; its successor starts on 1 November. An EMPTY list is a real and common answer: an act that has never been amended has no consolidated edition, because the register only creates one once something changes. Its original text is still the law in force, and get_act_version will return it for a date inside the act's own window. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Free: this call does not consume allowance.

list_versions

SECONDARY TOOL - change tracking, for people who specifically need it. It does NOT state what the law says. If the user's question is what a provision says or requires on a date, call get_article or get_act_version instead: the consolidated edition already has every one of these changes folded into it, and reassembling the law from a change list gets it wrong. Report WHICH provisions of an act were added, removed or altered between a starting date and an as-at date. A list of article numbers and what happened to them - the wording itself is deliberately not included; call diff_versions for that, or get_article to read the provision as it now stands. Use it for monitoring: 'has anything moved in the Labour Code since our handbook was written', 'do we need to re-read our template'. It answers a maintenance question, not a legal one. This tool compares two dates, and EACH endpoint is ONE point in time. Neither is assumed and neither defaults to today; the register held different text on each of them, and the result is only true for the pair you asked about. Report both dates whenever you report the result. 'Since' without an end date would silently mean 'until whenever this server thinks now is' - pass today's actual calendar date as `as_of` if that is what the user means. An empty list means nothing changed between those two dates, which is a real answer. It is NOT the same as a refusal - see below. Every reply carries a `verify_at` URL: the official register's page for exactly this edition, showing this text with this validity window. Give it to the user with the answer. It is what turns a legal claim into a checkable one, and it is the only way the user can tell a working tool from a broken one. A reply of 'NOT ANSWERED' means the official register could not confirm this - a gap or a conflict in the edition timeline, an act outside the curated catalogue, or data too stale to stand behind. It does NOT mean the act, the article or the rule does not exist. Never report it to the user as 'there is no such law'; report that it could not be confirmed and say why, using the reason given. Billable: one unit, charged only if a result is actually returned.

what_changed