Built from a run recorded on 24 Sep 2026 against the live services.
A general assistant answers legal questions from what it learned in training, which is not a source you can cite. Connected to primary sources, the same assistant can quote the text, name the ruling, and check that a citation is real before you put it in a letter. (Anthropic also publishes Claude for Legal, a suite of plugins for legal work.)
This guide shows one research question answered that way on 24 September 2026, through Datailo, which connects an assistant to Rekvira (EU regulation text) and Avokata (Lithuanian legislation and court rulings).
The question
A client in Lithuania asks for compensation for non-material damage after a company published their personal data. What does the GDPR say, and how have Lithuanian courts handled such claims?
Step 1: the rule, quoted and checked
Rekvira returned GDPR Article 82(1) in 342 ms:
“Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.”
Source: Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article
82(1), EUR-Lex text as of 2 September 2026. Then verify_citation checked the sentence against the held text and
answered quote: found. That second call is the one to insist on: it is how an assistant shows that the words it
attributes to a provision are the provision’s words.
Step 2: how Lithuanian courts applied it
Avokata searched the case law in Lithuanian, the language the courts write in. The first search, without a filter, returned passages from the Supreme Administrative Court, where the data protection authority’s fines are reviewed. A second search limited to civil cases returned the damages claims:
| Case | Court | Date | What the passage says |
|---|---|---|---|
| e3K-3-32-684/2025 | Supreme Court of Lithuania | 2 Jul 2025 | A group action: the claimants alleged a breach of GDPR Article 32(1) and asked for EUR 300 of non-material damages for each member, EUR 103,800 in total |
| e2-656-633/2026 | Marijampolė District Court | 22 Apr 2026 | An employee’s sick-leave certificate disclosed at a staff meeting; claim for EUR 5,000 under GDPR Article 5(1)(a) and (c) |
| 2-242-633/2026 | Marijampolė District Court | 2 Feb 2026 | A name published on a news site; claim for EUR 2,000 under GDPR Articles 5 and 6 and the Law on Public Information |
| eA-3038-624/2021 | Supreme Administrative Court | 29 Dec 2021 | Sets out Article 82(1), (2) and (4): who is liable and when controller and processor answer jointly |
The amounts are what the claimants asked for, as each ruling records the claim; the passages the search returned do not say what the courts awarded. Reading the operative part of each ruling is the next step, and the assistant can do it with the same connection.
The Supreme Administrative Court’s paragraph 35 in eA-3038-624/2021 opens with the rule itself, in Lithuanian:
“BDAR 82 straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatyta, kad bet kuris asmuo, patyręs materialinę ar nematerialinę žalą dėl šio reglamento pažeidimo, turi teisę iš duomenų valdytojo arba duomenų tvarkytojo gauti kompensaciją už patirtą žalą.”
Avokata’s verify_citation confirmed the case number exists in its corpus, decided on 29 December 2021.
What made the answer usable
- Every statement carries a pinpoint: an article and paragraph, or a case number and paragraph.
- Every source carries a date: the EUR-Lex text as of 2 September 2026; the Lithuanian case law as of 24 September 2026, on a tier that serves rulings with a 24-hour delay.
- The two citation checks are in the record: one on the quoted regulation text, one on the case number.
- The case-law search was run in Lithuanian, in the words judgments use (“neturtinės žalos atlyginimas”), because Avokata’s corpus is Lithuanian and its search asks for Lithuanian queries.
Limits
The services return sources, not advice; Rekvira’s citation check said so in its reply. Avokata covers Lithuanian courts; another country’s case law needs another source. The run did not read the operative parts of the rulings, so it says nothing about outcomes.
Related
- AI vendor due diligence: the Civil Code articles with their ruling counts
- How to add an MCP server to Claude: connecting these sources
- MCP tool search: how the assistant finds
search_practiceandverify_citation
The recorded run
A client in Lithuania asks for non-material damages after a GDPR breach: what does Article 82 say and how have Lithuanian courts applied it? Recorded 24 Sep 2026 through https://mcp.datailo.com/mcp; 9 calls, each with the time it took from our test machine.
Every call in the run (9)
datailo_connectemail=content-proof-2@example.test78 ms. sign-in started with an email addressdatailo_connect_verifyrequest_id=[redacted], code=[redacted]37 ms. signed in; the hub issued a key for the later callsdatailo_enableservice=rekvira68 ms. Rekvira switched on (keyless)datailo_enableservice=avokata240 ms. Avokata switched on (partner)datailo_invoke → rekvira.read_unitregulation=gdpr, pinpoint=Article 82(1)342 ms. GDPR Article 82(1)GDPR Article 82(1)Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.
datailo_invoke → rekvira.verify_citationcitation=Article 82(1) GDPR, quote=Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage…282 ms. verdict: founddatailo_invoke → avokata.search_practicequery=neturtinės žalos atlyginimas už asmens duomenų tvarkymo pažeidimą BDAR 82 straipsnis, limit=68,389 ms. 6 passages from Lithuanian rulingseA-3038-624/202135. BDAR 82 straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatyta, kad bet kuris asmuo, patyręs materialinę ar nematerialinę žalą dėl šio reglamento pažeidimo, turi teisę iš duomenų valdytojo arba duomenų tvarkytojo gauti kompensaciją už…eA-650-525/202230. Atsakovas kritiškai vertina teismo argumentus, kad tik išsprendus dėl pareiškėjo nurodytų paaiškinimų, susijusių su asmens duomenų tvarkymo teisėtumu pagal BDAR 6 straipsnį, galima spręsti dėl asmens duomenų…eA-650-525/202230. Atsakovas kritiškai vertina teismo argumentus, kad tik išsprendus dėl pareiškėjo nurodytų paaiškinimų, susijusių su asmens duomenų tvarkymo teisėtumu pagal BDAR 6 straipsnį, galima spręsti dėl asmens duomenų…eA-1740-525/202417. Atsakovas Inspekcija apeliaciniame skunde prašo panaikinti Regionų administracinio teismo Vilniaus rūmų 2024 m. balandžio 4 d. sprendimą ir priimti naują sprendimą · pareiškėjo skundą atmesti. Apeliacinis skundas…A-545-629/202415. Atsakovas Inspekcija atsiliepime į apeliacinį skundą prašo Vilniaus apygardos administracinio teismo 2023 m. balandžio 21 d. sprendimą palikti nepakeistą, o apeliacinį skundą atmesti. Atsakovas atsiliepime į…eA-1740-525/20243. Atsakovas Inspekcija atsiliepime į skundą prašė jį atmesti ir nurodė šiuos argumentus: 3.1. Sprendimu administracinė bauda pareiškėjui skirta už BDAR 32 straipsnio nuostatų pažeidimą. Atsakovas, remdamasis BDAR 32…
datailo_invoke → avokata.search_practicequery=neturtinės žalos atlyginimas asmens duomenų tvarkymo pažeidimas BDAR, case_types=["civil"], limit=55,999 ms. 5 passages from civil rulingse3K-3-32-684/20252. Ieškovė (grupės atstovė) prašė: 1) pripažinti, kad atsakovė neužtikrino asmens duomenų konfidencialumo, vientisumo ir prieinamumo, pažeidė 2016 m. balandžio 26 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (ES)…e2-656-633/20261. Ieškovas savo ieškiniu byloje prašo teismą pripažinti, kad atsakovas, tvarkydamas jo asmens duomenis (apie jam išduotą nedarbingumo pažymėjimą) (toliau ir · ginčo asmens duomenis), šiuos 2024 m. birželio 3 d. per…2-242-633/20261. Ieškovas savo patikslintu ieškiniu prašo teismą : a) pripažinti, kad atsakovė, tvarkydama jo asmens duomenis (vardą ir pavardę) (toliau ir · ginčo asmens duomenis), šiuos 2025 m. balandžio 30 d. neteisėtai viešai…e2A-285-589/20236. Taip pat nurodė, kad Medžioklės Lietuvos Respublikos teritorijoje taisyklių (patvirtintų Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministro 2000 m. birželio 27 d. įsakymu Nr. 258 (toliau · ir Medžioklės taisyklės)) 19, 191, 21…e2-2663-1088/202130. Ieškovė reikalavimą grindžia ir nuo 2018 m. gegužės 25 d. Lietuvos Respublikoje pradėto taikyti BDAR, pagal kurį duomenų valdytojas nustato duomenų tvarkymo tikslus ir priemones, 4 straipsnio ir 28 straipsnių…
datailo_invoke → avokata.verify_citationcitation=eA-3038-624/2021501 ms. case eA-3038-624/2021: held
Try it in your assistant
Add the address to your client (setup per client), then paste the prompt. Signing in takes an email code; the three services are free during the beta.
https://mcp.datailo.com/mcp Then say
Use Datailo: read GDPR Article 82(1) and check the quote, then find Lithuanian rulings on non-material damages for unlawful processing of personal data, civil cases first, with case numbers and links.