The concept of "simplified authorization" is one but the two largest institutions understand and legally interpret it differently


A little over a year ago[1], we wrote about a legal problem[2] regarding the possibility to give accountants the right to connect to the represented person’s STI and SODRA system.

Since the problem lasted for about a decade, I will briefly recall the essence of the problem.

If natural person X performing IA (individual activity) has entered into an agreement with legal entity A for the management of accounting, then X had to go to a notary and obtain notarial approval in order for legal entity A to have access to natural person X’s SODRA Electronic Servicing System for Insurer (hereinafter – ESSI). The sole purpose of connecting to the SODRA system is to provide timely and appropriate information about the activities of person X and the employees involved in the activities.

Meanwhile, in order to submit declarations through the STI systems, it is not necessary to go to a notary, it is sufficient to grant access electronically, assuming that this is in line with the essence of the concept of simplified authorization (Article 2.139 of the Civil Code). However, SODRA’s Legal Department categorically disagreed with the application of the concept of a simplified authorization to the same subject.

 On 21 July 2021, we submitted an inquiry to SODRA, in which we asked whether the simplified authorization regulated in the provisions of Paragraphs 2.138 and 2.139 of the Civil Code (CC) is intended to be applied in the practice of SODRA.

 We received an answer to the inquiry submitted on 21 July 2021 only after five months, i. y. 22 December 2021. The reply states that “The Board of the Fund has initiated amendments to the Law on State Social Insurance of the Republic of Lithuania (currently amending Articles 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 191, 21, 23, 32, 33, 34, 341, 35 of the Law on State Social Insurance of the Republic of Lithuania No. I-1336 and the draft law on supplementing the law with Article 181 has already been approved by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania)... Thus, after the entry into force of these amendments, natural persons-policyholders will be able to submit a power of attorney to represent them in relations with the administrative institutions of the State Social Insurance Fund in a simpler (non-notarial) manner.”

In informal communication with SODRA’s lawyers, and in the light of the response received, it can be assumed that a simplified authorization cannot be applied in law. That is why an amendment to the law was initiated. It is gratifying that SODRA’s lawyers have finally been able to find a logical solution to the problem of power of attorney.

On the second question of the inquiry - whether SODRA and the STI can interpret and apply the same law differently – SODRA’s lawyers were diplomatically silent, stating that it is not their competence to assess the work of other institutions.

In summary, I would like to emphasize a few things.

It is particularly gratifying that, after more than a decade of debate with SODRA’s lawyers, SODRA has initiated an amendment to the law that should help resolve the rebus of the transfer of representation.

Many years of experience in communicating with the institutions show that oral discussions with the institutions are not fruitful. Inquiries about the existing problems must be submitted only in writing, and it is also useful to discuss all aspects of the institutions’ activities in the public space - the media. Publicity is an effective way of promoting problem-solving.

On the other hand, if the STI lawyers started to state that the simplified authorization cannot be applied to the transfer of access and therefore a written notarization is required ... Such a decision would, without exaggerating, depress the users of the system several decades back.

I would not want to praise or reprimand any institution, or even consider, who is right and who is wrong. However, I believe that Law Departments of both the STI and the SODRA and all relevant ministries - the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania - have unlimited human and financial opportunities to obtain professional legal advice on the application of the provisions of the second book of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and other related legislation regarding the simplified authorization. Unfortunately, observing the situation, I am forced to believe that not all institutions are making good use of the opportunities available to them.

It is important that all institutions sit down at a round table and discuss possible options before making decisions related to business. This would be better for everyone, both the institutions themselves and the business community. We must not forget that Lithuania is a small country, so we should solve the existing problems more quickly in order to be attractive for business both in Lithuania and internationally.


15 April 2022
Daiva Žumbakienė


The inquiry submitted to SODRA on 21 July 2021
Response received from SODRA on 22 December 2021

[1] Inquiries were submitted on 28 November 2018