"LITEKO 2", or why the state spends millions on what the market would offer much cheaper

On June 1, 2026, all Lithuanian courts transitioned to the updated court information system "LITEKO II". The transition, which was supposed to become one of the largest modernizations of a state-managed information system, turned into what the media called a tragedy on the very first day. The system operated so slowly and unreliably that the courts were forced to return to paper documents, email, and other auxiliary methods for submitting documents. We will briefly review what happened with "LITEKO II", how much it cost, and why the implementation of technological solutions in state institutions is still so complex.

What is "LITEKO" and why did it need an update

"LITEKO" is the information system of Lithuanian courts, operating since 2004 and administered by the National Court Administration (hereinafter — NCA). It is a system through which case distribution, document management, data publication, and other electronic services related to court activities take place. According to the information provided by the NCA, the system is integrated with nearly 40 other state data systems or registers.

The old system was, understandably, long outdated and in need of an update. Marius Dobrovolskis, chairman of the Klaipėda District Court, told the media that the old system was "creaking" and that an update was necessary. However, it is important to consider how such an update was implemented.

How much it cost and who built it

The exact cost of "LITEKO II" seems to depend on which source you read. According to NCA data provided to the media (quoted by "Delfi", LRT, etc.), the total value of eleven contracts reaches more than 4.6 million euros, with about 3.9 million euros actually paid out. Meanwhile, "Vakarų ekspresas" points to a higher figure, claiming that contracts worth 6.04 million euros were signed. A separate NCA project budget also mentions a project worth 2.549 million euros. It is likely that these figures cover different scopes of work, but the very fact that it is difficult to publicly find a clear answer to the question "how much did it cost" is eloquent in its own way.

The system has been developed since 2019 by the Vilnius-based information technology company "Proit", and its maintenance was entrusted to "Novian pro". It is worth noting that the name "Proit" is not new in the context of Lithuanian public sector IT. The same company was included in the list of unreliable suppliers due to another unsuccessful project - the social support system SPIS of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, which it was also supposed to modernize. That project, valued at about 1 million euros, stalled, ended in contract termination, and ultimately in an appeal to the prosecutor's office.

What happened after launch

From day one, users encountered serious system performance issues and functional disruptions. The NCA acknowledged the disruptions and urged case participants to submit documents through other means, e.g., in person at the court, by email with a qualified signature, or via the "epristatymas.lt" system. This is a somewhat symbolic moment: an institution that has just implemented a modern digital system asks people to print paper and bring it to the court in person.

Danguolė Bublienė, chairwoman of the Judicial Council, publicly admitted that the disruptions complicate the daily work of many judges and court staff and cause frustration. Responding to calls to return to the old system, she explained that it is not that simple – we are talking about millions of data records, procedural relations, and integrations with other systems. The old "LITEKO" now operates only in archive mode, and going back, according to reports, would cost more than 1 million euros just to restore integrations. In other words, there is no turning back.

It is also worth noting what is not there yet. So far, neither the audit of "LITEKO II" conducted by the National Audit Office, nor the parliamentary investigation, nor a clear date for when the system will work properly has been announced.

The broader picture: this is not the first time

The story of "LITEKO II" does not exist in a vacuum. Anyone who follows Lithuanian public sector news will recognize a familiar plot. In November 2025, after a weekend update, the e-health (e.sveikata) system, which the Register Center later declared "stabilized", essentially ground to a halt. According to LRT, e-health processes about 500 terabytes of data and costs about 4 million euros annually to maintain. Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė then said what is probably the most accurate phrase about e-health: that the system "is generally like a joke", and the technologies implemented in the public sector do not achieve any intended goals.

When the state talks about its own digital projects as jokes, something in the system is not working. And the most interesting thing is that this happens in a country that, according to the European Union Justice Scoreboard, has repeatedly been rated as having one of the most digital, open, and fast justice systems in Europe, despite having one of the lowest levels of court funding in the EU.

Why the state doesn't use what the market offers

This brings us to the core issue. Why does an institution spend several millions to create a system that doesn't work on launch day, when at the same time a private sector exists that is capable of building such solutions faster, cheaper, and often with higher quality?

The answer partly lies in the logic of public procurement. In Lithuania, technological solutions for the state are usually acquired through public tenders. However, when the main selection factor is price or formal requirements rather than the actual ability to deliver a working product, the result is predictable. The tender is won by the one who best meets the listed criteria.

What all this has to do with justice

One might ask why an IT system failure matters at all when talking about justice. The answer is simple: courts exist to protect individuals from violations of their rights. But how can a court help every citizen seeking help when workloads are huge, and staff and budgets are constantly shrinking? One of the real ways to reduce that burden is technology.

Today, for the first time in history, we have technological tools that could actually democratize legal aid, making it accessible to those for whom it was previously too expensive or too complex. Yet, we still hesitate to get on that train. In this sense, the story of "LITEKO" is a symbol of a broader problem – not the mistake of one company or one project, but a slow, gradual movement toward a state where technology and the state speak different languages.