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 appeal drafted by the lawyer of the firm, changed the unfavorable to the client judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania. The judicial panel of the Court of Cassation noted in its judgement that, inter alia, neither party has the right to become enriched without just cause either because of the performance of the contract, or because of its expiration. Since the claimant had to be reimbursed for the completed modernisation of the heat sector by being given the right to operate in the aforementioned sector for a set period of time, there are no reasons to believe that, having exercised this right for 2/3 of the aforementioned period, the claimant has the right to recover the total value of heating sector improvement, which was described in the Modernisation Contract as compensation to the defendants (the clients) for the right given to the claimant. Such interpretation of the contract would be unfair for the defendants because, since the defendants have fulfilled a major part of their obligation, the claimant would be essentially exempt from its obligation to transfer all improvements to the defendants for LTL 1, while the defendants would be forced to pay the full market value for them. The judicial panel, taking into account that the defendants fulfilled 2/3 of the period of their obligation stipulated in the Modernisation Contract properly, decided that 1/3 of the value of heat sector improvements should be awarded to the claimant for the remaining part of the contract period that was not performed. As a result, the amount of EUR 1,696,039.45, which was awarded to the claimant by the Court of Appeal of Lithuania as compensation for heat sector improvements, was reduced almost six times: to EUR 285,997.16.
We provided necessary legal services to the client in the legal process regarding the recognition of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the permission to implement the decision in the Republic of Lithuania. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania considered the client’s application and noted in its procedural decision that, inter alia, Article V of the New York Convention provides for an exhaustive list of potential grounds for not recognising a decision of a court of arbitration, therefore, the procedure of recognising the decisions of foreign courts of arbitration and the permission to implement them means checking whether grounds stipulated in Article V of the New York Convention are present or not. The court that examined the matter of recognising the decision of the court of arbitration and the permission to implement it does not have the right to examine the substance of the case, to find out whether the arbitrators identified the factual circumstances of the case correctly, whether they examined and evaluated the evidence properly, whether they interpreted and applied the law properly, etc. In this case, the judicial panel did not identify grounds for not recognising the decision of the court of arbitration stipulated in Article V(1) and (2) of the New York Convention; therefore, it ruled that the decision of the court of arbitration should be recognised and allowed to be implemented in the Republic of Lithuania.
We represented a client- a waste management system organizer- in a civil dispute with a seller of underground containers regarding the termination of the contract being declared unlawful and the obligation to accept the performance of the contract. The district court that examined the dispute noted in its decision that, inter alia, the obligation of one party to fulfil its contractual obligation matches the right of claim of the other party, which is protected by law, as contractual liability may be imposed for failing to fulfil or for inadequately fulfilling contractual obligations (Article 6.256(1) of the Civil Code). The principles of a contract being binding and enforceable (pacta sunt servanda), on which contractual relations are based on, mean that any inadequate performance of the contract means a breach of contract, for which the contract party that fails to fulfil its obligations is responsible. The court noted that the claimant did not provide any evidence that the actually delivered containers meet the requirements of technical specifications. According to the provisions of the signed contracts, goods may be accepted only after inspection, by signing a tripartite statement of transfer and acceptance. In addition, before the statement of transfer and acceptance of the goods is signed, the customer (the client) has the right to demand that the goods that do not meet the contractual requirements be replaced with goods that meet the contractual requirements or that the identified faults be fixed; therefore, there are insufficient grounds for the customer to assess that the containers that were intended to be delivered meet all contractual requirements without inspecting them. Most of the claims were dismissed as unfounded.
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...
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...
We represented our client in a civil dispute regarding the institution of a judicial pledge (hypothec) against a property owned by the client. The appellate court having heard the case, inter alia, upheld the conclusion of the court of first instance stating that by its decision, a court has the right to institute a judicial pledge (hypothec) against an immovab...