SEPTEMBER 2020

The court ruled on the right of the insurer to change the grounds for refusal to pay out an insurance benefit.

We defended the client’s interests in a civil dispute with the insurance company over award of the insurance benefit and damage. The court which has heard the case in its judgement, inter alia, stated that the insurer must investigate the circumstances of an insured event and pay out an insurance benefit within 30 days and, in case of a decrease or refusal to pay out a benefit, to provide a detailed and reasoned written explanation of the reasons for such judgement. These provisions prevent an insurer who refuses to pay an insurance benefit on one ground, after the policyholder has challenged the validity of this refusal in court, to additionally indicate other grounds on which it did not rely on refusing to pay the insurance benefit. The data in the case confirmed that the insurance company has unreasonably changed the grounds for refusal to pay out the insurance benefit. Given such circumstances, the court has found the duty of the insurance company to pay out the insurance benefit and compensate the damage.

Victory in the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania: the client of the law firm will not have to comply with the decision on repayment of the EU support funds passed by the implementing authorities.

The Attorney at Law of the Law Firm successfully defended the client’s interests in the dispute with the Environmental Projects Management Agency and the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania over repayment of the EU support funds.
The court in its final ruling has held that both the activities of the Environmental Projects Management Agency and the activities of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania are bound by the principle of sound administration which in the given dispute has been infringed, i.e. a breach of the main rules of procedure which had to ensure objective evaluation of all circumstances and reasonableness of the judgement. The court has ruled that, in the event of the dispute, the time limits for provision of additional material and elimination of shortcomings set for the applicant (client of the Law Firm) did not correspond to the legal category of the reasonable time limit, did not create the prerequisites for proper exercise of the right to provide proper evidence by the applicant. The court has decided that such breach of procedure constitutes sufficient grounds for annulment of the decisions of the implementing authorities and obliging them to carry out an evaluation of the breach anew and objectively.

We defended a client’s interests in the dispute over unjust enrichment.

Attorney-at-Law of the Law Firm defended a client’s interests in the dispute over unjust enrichment.
The claimant brought a claim for unjust enrichment for the amount of EUR 105,000 against the client of the Law Firm arguing that the client unlawfully rented claimant’s share of the common premises of a commercial building and received the rental payment for it. At the same time, the claimant, in making a claim against the tenant of the premises also argued that the latter has unreasonably saved some funds at the claimant’s expense by not paying the rental payment of the common premises.  
The court which has heard the case has dismissed the claim. The Attorney-at-Law of the Law Firm proved that the client of the Law Firm did not calculate the rent for the claimant's share of the common areas. The court also found that the tenant of the premises was not obliged to pay the claimant rent for his share of the common use premises, since, in case of the given dispute, unjust enrichment of the respondent corresponding to the decrease of the claimant’s assets has not been determined, i.e. the tenant was not obliged to make the rental payment to the claimant under the contract.

  • AUGUST 2020

    The court has resolved a dispute between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania imprisoned in the USA on whom a capital punishment has been imposed.An attorney-at-law of the law firm has successfully represented a client, i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the dispute with a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania imprison...

  • JULY 2020

    We have proven that our client conducted a lawful and transparent public procurement. We represented our client, i.e. waste management system organiser, in a dispute which has arisen out of the legal relations of public procurement. The attorneys-at-law of the law firm successfully proved that the client conducted a transparent and lawful public procuremen...

  • 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 be...

  • 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...

>> Archive