JUNE 2020

The court ruled on the possibility of applying subsidiary civil liability to the head of a legal person in case the company does not properly fulfill the obligation to pay taxes to the state on time.
Attorney at Law of our firm succeeded in defending a client’s interests in the court of appeal. The State Tax Inspectorate (STI) sought to prove that being the head of a company which encountered financial troubles the client of the law firm failed to follow the order of priority with regard to cash and cashless payments; for this reason, he should be considered subsidiary liable for the damages incurred by the STI (taxes unpaid by the enterprise).
We managed to prove in the court that the STI had no right to file direct claims against the head of the tax debtor. Accepting the position of the lawyer the court stated that the direct claim of the creditor against the head of the enterprise may be filed in three cases: first, when damages are caused to an individual creditor by unlawful actions targeted specifically  at him; second, when the head of an enterprise is guilty for deliberate bankruptcy and it is evident that the enterprise will not make any payments to its creditors; third, when the head of an enterprise causes damage by means of criminal acts which are stated (proven) in accordance with the procedure established in the Criminal Code. The State Tax Inspectorate failed to prove any of the aforementioned grounds in the dispute.
In addition, the court agreed with the lawyer of the law firm that taxes are no damages but the duty of the enterprise, the necessary operating costs arising regardless of the actions of the head of the enterprise. The court of appeal recognised that unlawful state tax evasion cannot be considered damages by the enterprise within the meaning of Article 6.249 (1) of the Civil Code and the head of an enterprise may not be liable for the taxes not paid to the state since, regardless of his actions, the enterprise would have had the obligation to pay them. The obligation of an enterprise to pay taxes arises from the law, not from civil liability; for this reason, there is no ground for the creditor of the enterprise to recognise the amount of unpaid taxes as damages caused by the head of the enterprise.
Rent of agricultural land per se gives no priority to the land tenant to purchase the leased land.
We have defended our client’s interests in a judicial dispute regarding the demand of the tenant of agricultural land to transfer to him the rights and duties of a land buyer.
Attorney at Law of our firm succeeded in proving that the mere formal existence and disclosure of an agricultural land lease agreement does not give the tenant any priority to purchase the leased land – the tenant must cultivate the land, i.e. to use it for agricultural activities. The court stated that the aim and purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 5(1) of the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land is to ensure continuity of the use of agricultural land; for this reason, the formal rent of a land plot alone without being cultivated by the tenant but being sub-rented gives no priority right to the tenant to purchase it.
Having installed faulty equipment the contractor had to assume the costs of removing the defect.
Attorney at Law of our firm successfully represented a client – district heating supplier – in a dispute with a contractor based on the claim filed by the latter regarding the award of damages (remuneration for additional works). The contractor argued that defects in the installed equipment resulted from the selection of unsuitable fuel by the district heating supplier; therefore, removal of defects must be recognised as additional works and they must be paid for accordingly.  
We managed to prove that to fulfil his obligations the contractor had to design and install the boilers suitable for the fuel used in the Lithuanian market, however, the designed and installed equipment was not suitable for operating as stated in the technical task of the heating supplier and for functioning in the mode specified in the agreement concluded by the parties. The final ruling issued by the court stated that the contractor failed to properly evaluate the structure of biofuel used by the district heating supplier; for this reason, the existence of fault of the district heating supplier for improper use and maintenance of the equipment was not proven; the provision on application of the exception regarding the warranty on quality of works was not proven either; as a result, the contractor was not awarded the amount bigger than EUR 214,000 for the works performed during the warranty period.

  • APRIL 2020

    We successfully represented a client in a court of appeal in a civil case for damages caused by unfair competition. The panel of judges of the Civil Cases Division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, having examined the appeal prepared by advocates of the Law Firm, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance unfavourable for the client. In its judgmen...

  • MARCH 2020

    We defended the client's interests in a civil case under a lawsuit filed against the client regarding the annulment of land donation agreements and the application of restitution. The Court which has heard the case has in its judgement, inter alia, stated that in pursuance of ensuring the stability of civil relations of public interest and adequacy of applicati...

  • FEBRUARY 2020

    We represented a client (supplier) in an appeal procedure in a public procurement case, based on a claim brought by the client against the contracting authority for the annulment of its decision. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania that settled the case noted in its ruling inter alia that procurement documents must be accurate, clear, without ambiguities in order ...

  • JANUARY 2020

    We represented our client in the tax dispute with the State Tax Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the refusal to spread the payment of the tax arrears over the respective period. Having examined the appeal lodged by the tax administrator, the chamber of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in i...

  • DECEMBER 2019

    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)...

>> Archive