We successfully represented a client, a member of the association, in a civil dispute regarding the annulment of a resolution of the general meeting. The court that had examined the dispute noted in its decision, inter alia, that when matters of member removal are addressed, the association must create the most suitable and acceptable conditions (prerequisites) for all interested parties to prepare for the discussion of such an important matter properly; for example, grounds for removal must be stated clearly and in advance, conditions (opportunities) must be created for collecting and presenting information that is important for the matter being discussed, for members to form their opinions, for all interested parties to have a say, for stating objections, etc.; in such cases, it must be ensured that such important matters are not discussed, resolved or voted on essentially without preparation. The court ruled that in the disputed resolution of the general meeting, a decision on the restriction on the client’s rights had been made. However, there are no data in the case that would allow stating that the client would have been made familiar in advance with the results of financing activities report and with the proposals, which, inter alia, are directly linked to the client’s rights, that the client would have been allowed to prepare for the discussion of the matter as well as to speak during the meeting. The court recognised that obvious procedural violations were committed and that they are grounds for declaring the disputed resolution of the general meeting unlawful, which constitutes grounds for annulment (Article 2.82(4) of the Civil Code).
We represented an applicant during an administrative dispute with the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the Commission for Ethics and Procedures of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) regarding the annulment of the decision and the order to perform actions. The district administrative court that examined the case noted in its decision, inter alia, that one of the grounds for the investigation of the conduct of a state politician by the Commission was a complaint, application or notification of a natural person or a legal entity. The Commission’s discretion over deciding on not launching the investigation is not absolute. The Commission is bound by the provisions and goals of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the Code). According to the court’s assessment, the Commission’s refusal to start the investigation into statements made by the Prime Minister with regard to the client was made groundlessly. The client's complaint (the request to start the investigation into the politician’s conduct) was not handled properly, regulatory requirements determining the handling of such complaints (requests) were not complied with, and the decision that had been made did not fulfil the requirements of the Code and Article 8 of the Law on Public Administration of the Republic of Lithuania. On the grounds of identified legal and factual circumstances, the court ruled that the Commission’s decision is not lawful or justified and that it must be annulled.
We represented a public administration, a public body of the Republic of Lithuania, in an administrative dispute about the annulment of the decision and the order to perform actions. The district administrative court that examined the case emphasised in its decision, inter alia, that the factual basis for making the decision as well as the individual arguments must be known not only to the public administration entity making the decision, but also to the person about whom the decision is made. An individual administrative act must allow understanding the substance of social relations and the entities that participate in the relations, and the legal classification of the social relations must be clear. If the aforementioned provisions are not complied with or are only complied with partially, for example, not stating the legal acts that were the basis for adopting the disputed administrative act, usually there is reasonable doubt regarding the legality and regularity of such an administrative act, allowing the court examining the case to annul the disputed individual administrative act of the public administration entity. Having thoroughly and fully examined the evidence available in the case, the court concluded that in the disputed decision, the legal act based on which the decision had been made is clearly stated; in addition, the grounds for refusing to grant the applicant’s request are clearly indicated in the decision. The court ruled that the disputed decision is lawful and reasonable; therefore, there are no legal grounds for approving the applicant’s complaint.
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 ...
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 ...
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...
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...
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...