We will challenge in court the decision of the Chief Official Ethics Commission, which we believe is incorrect. We aim to prove that we did not violate the Lobbying Law when we brought the Ministry of Environment’s attention to what we think is a discriminatory and flawed legal regulation related to EU funding.
We contacted the ministry after noticing a clause in the funding guidelines that conflicts with EU project selection and funding criteria, basic legal principles, and higher-level laws.
“It’s strange that we are being punished for addressing the ministry that oversees our sector about an inconsistency in the funding rules. The rules discriminated against mixed waste operators and gave unfair advantages to companies handling plastic from sorting containers. We believe this goes against the law, equality principles, and fair competition,” says Algirdas Blazgys, CEO of Energesman.
Energesman raised concerns about the funding rules under the program “Expansion of Plastic Waste Recycling Capacity”, which allowed EU funding only for companies processing plastic waste collected from yellow recycling containers.
However, currently, residents separate only about half of their plastic packaging into these containers. The other half ends up in mixed municipal waste, which is later sorted at mixed waste sorting plants operating across Lithuania.
According to the CEO, if EU funding is aimed at boosting plastic recycling, then all companies involved in recycling, including those handling mixed waste, should be eligible for support.
Under the existing guidelines, Energesman and other operators of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plants would not be allowed to apply for funding.
“After seeing the discriminatory rule, we contacted the Ministry of Environment and the Central Project Management Agency, urging them to fix this legal flaw that excludes mixed waste operators,” says Blazgys.
The ministry responded that the funding was intended to support the recycling of hard-to-recycle plastic.
Blazgys noted that plastic sorted from mixed waste is actually more difficult to recycle than that collected from yellow containers, which makes it even more important to include mixed waste operators in the funding program.
“We know that other waste companies also contacted the ministry about the same issue, and they were not penalized for lobbying, even though they are not registered as lobbyists,” he adds.
The Lobbying Law states that expressing an opinion about legislation is not considered lobbying, unless a company drafts a specific law and proposes it for consideration.
“We did not prepare or propose any legal draft. We simply expressed our opinion about a discriminatory rule and requested that the responsible institutions ensure fair treatment. We believe we did nothing wrong and will challenge the commission’s decision in court,” says Blazgys.
Energesman believes the funding rules conflict with the Competition Law, Waste Management Law, the 2021–2027 National Waste Plan, and the Constitutional principle of equality, which all have higher legal authority than a minister’s order.
“We still haven’t received the full Commission’s decision and explanation, even though we’ve already been labelled as violators publicly. This doesn’t help build a cooperative relationship between businesses and regulators,” Blazgys notes.
Once Energesman receives the full documents, it will finalize its court appeal. The company has 30 days from receiving the decision to submit the appeal.
The Ministry of Environment has already suspended the current funding guidelines for plastic recycling and is now revising them.
Last year, Energesman recovered and supplied 2 481 tons of plastic for recycling from mixed waste.