NOVEMBER 2019

We successfully represented a client, one of the biggest Western agricultural machinery suppliers, before the Court of Appeals of Lithuania in a civil case on the basis of a claim filed against the client regarding termination of a contract, application of restitution and payment of damages in the amount of more than EUR 70,000. Having considered the case, the court of appeal instance noted in its ruling that, among other things, the establishment of alternative means of defence of a purchaser’s rights means that after application of one way of defence for ensuring the purchaser’s right to get an item of appropriate quality the purchaser has no legal basis to demand that under the same actual circumstances with regard to the defects in the quality of a sold item the seller would be liable in any other way as well because contractual obligations arising out of certain defects in an item have already expired. The purchaser may choose another way of defence/protection of breached rights only after the discovery of new defects in the quality of an item. The court stated that the claimant chose the way of defence of its violated rights and expressed the desire to protect its rights demanding to remove defects in the products; the defects were removed; for this reason, the claimant could not protect its violated rights employing any other means of protection of a purchaser’s rights as specified in Article 6.334(1) of the Civil Code; in other words, the claimant could not demand to terminate the purchase and sale contract and apply restitution. The appeal was not satisfied, litigation costs were awarded in favour of the client.
 
We represented a client (supplier) in a case of public procurement based on a claim filed by the client against the purchasing authority with regard to the annulment of its decision. Having considered the case the regional court, among other things, noted that the procurement terms and conditions must be explicit and clear both to the suppliers and to the purchasing authorities so that the first ones could properly draw up and submit proposals (tenders) in compliance with the purchasers’ needs, and the latter ones could evaluate the submitted tenders equally according to the procurement terms and conditions. Purchasing authorities assess suppliers’ tenders exclusively according to the terms and conditions of public procurement; in any case, purchasing authorities cannot reject a supplier’s tender based on the requirements which were not explicitly publicised in advance, regardless of the fact that the need of their fulfilment arises out of the application of other special legal acts. The court found that the client provided a document meeting the procurement terms and conditions which did not include or did not single out certain procedures of completion of construction works the inclusion of which were not required in advance in the procurement documents. The schedule on completion of works submitted by the client and the timeframe for performance of works specified therein were in line with and did not conflict with the general period of time specified by the purchasing authority in the explanation of public procurement (tender) documents and also met the requirements set for a public tender. The purchasing authority violated the prohibition to set forth new requirements to suppliers after the submission of tenders; for this reason, a decision adopted on the basis of new requirements of the purchasing authority could not be considered lawful and reasonable. The court annulled the decision of the purchasing authority by which the client’s tender was rejected and ruled that litigation costs incurred by the client had to be covered by the purchasing authority for the benefit of the client.
 
We represented a public administration institution – a state authority of the Republic of Lithuania – before the court of appeal instance in a civil dispute over refutation of data which undermined honour and dignity. Having considered the case, the chamber of judges of civil cases of Vilnius Regional Court noted, among other things, in its ruling that honour and dignity under Article 2.24 of the Civil Code are protected after identification  of the totality of the following facts: first, the fact of publicising the data, second, the fact that all details relate to the claimant, third, the fact that the publicised data is erroneous (does not meet the reality), and fourth, the fact that the data abases the person’s honour and dignity. To properly differentiate between a message/information and opinion, the most important thing is to assess the context of the respective article, the author’s formulations/ideas, whether publicised information is understood as an undisputable fact or as his personal evaluation of certain facts.  A message/information is subject to the criterion of truth; its existence may be verified against evidence and may be identified objectively. An opinion may have a sufficient factual basis but is subjective; for this reason, it is not subject to the criteria of truth and accuracy; rightness of an opinion does not require evidence and proof. The court of appeal instance did not identify that the publicised information was not in line with the reality or that it was erroneous. Therefore, the chamber of judges agreed with the view of the court of first instance that there were no necessary conditions to protect the claimant’s honour and dignity; in short, no unambiguous conclusion could be drawn that the information was publicised/disseminated and that it did not meet the reality. The appeal was not satisfied, litigation costs were awarded in favour of the client.

  • OCTOBER 2019

    We successfully represented the interests of the Municipality of Ukmergė District and UAB “Ukmergės šiluma” in a dispute with the former tenant (operator) of the municipality’s heating sector regarding compensation for losses. The judicial panel of the Civil Case Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, having examined the cassation ...

  • SEPTEMBER 2019

    We defended the client’s interests in the civil case in which the claim was brought against the client for indemnification of damages exceeding EUR 200 000. The Regional Court, having examined the case, pointed out that at the customer’s request the contractor must carry out all works of removal of defects or damage during the guarantee term. T...

  • AUGUST 2019

    We represented a client – an employer – in a labour case regarding the legitimacy and validity of a dismissal of an employee. Having considered the case the court inter alia noted in its ruling that in accordance with Article 57 of the Labour Code an employment contract with an employee can be terminated on the basis of changes in organisation of wo...

  • JULY 2019

    We successfully represented a client (defendant) in a civil case on damage to professional reputation, refutation of disseminated incorrect information and damage compensation. Having considered the case the court noted inter alia in its procedural decision that a person, whose honour and dignity were harmed by the dissemination of untrue data, may defend his/h...

  • JUNE 2019

    Having heard the cassation appeal prepared by a Law Firm’s lawyer, the Panel of Judges of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania annulled the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, which was unfavourable to the client. In its ruling, the Court of Cassation stated, inter alia, that the rules laid down in Articles 6.237 - 6.242 of the Civ...

1 2 3 4 5 6   >