We represented the largest supplier of Western agricultural machinery in Lithuania in a civil case before a regional court, initiated according to the lawsuit against the client for contract termination, restitution and award of damages of more than EUR 70,000. The court hearing the case inter alia stated that the buyer’s right, as established in paragraph 1(4) of Article 6.334 of the Civil Code, to withdraw from the contract when transfer of a thing of improper quality is a material breach of the contract, is the ultimate remedy (ultima ratio), when other remedies established in paragraphs 1(1) – 1(3) of Article 6.334 of the Civil Code are not sufficient for defence of infringed rights of the buyer. The court concluded that the exceptional remedy of return of the whole price paid by the buyer, as requested by the claimant, would be disproportionate. Besides, the court noted that a party to the proceedings, making a claim for indirect damages, must prove that it suffered real damages, i.e. lost income as a consequence of unlawful actions of the counterparty to the contract. The suffered indirect damages must be supported by real, proven, unavoidable, not just probable income. The court stated that evidence available in the case file does not prove that the income indicated by the claimant would have really been received. The lawsuit was essentially dismissed.
We represented a client (applicant) in an administrative dispute before a regional administrative court against the State of Lithuania represented by the National Land Service under the Ministry of Agriculture. The client requested award of moral damages from the State of Lithuania due to unjustifiable delay to examine the request of the client’s mother for restitution of the of ownership rights to land properly and in time. The court, having considered facts of the case, held that failure to take a final decision on restitution of the of ownership rights for 26 years is an unjustifiably long period. The court also upheld arguments of the attorney at law of our law firm that actions of state authorities, when during such a long period the relevant administrative acts were adopted, allowing the applicant to expect restoration of the ownership rights, then the opposite decisions adopted, are incompatible with the principles of good public administration, objectivity, proportionality, non-abuse of power. The panel of judges admitted that the 26-year process of restitution of the of ownership rights, the trial inflicted negative emotions and experiences, stress on the client, distrust in state authorities, therefore, he must be awarded moral damages. The client’s complaint was sustained.
We represented a district heating supplier in a civil dispute regarding the obligation to perform recalculation of distribution of heat energy. The court having examined the case inter alia noted that as a consumer, the subscriber must pay for that volume of energy that he consumed for his needs. He at the same time is a consumer of heat volume and, in a difference sense, the owner of property. Heat energy supplied to the house is used for heating common premises. The whole energy supplied to the house must be recorded and distributed according to law. A part of the energy is paid for as consumed by specific consumers, whereas the other energy (heating of common premises, maintaining the hot water temperature) must be paid for as by an owner of the house. This part is distributed among the co-owners based on the share of ownership in a residential house, as according to provisions of Article 4.76 of the Civil Code each of the co-owners is liable to third parties for the obligations in connection with a common thing (property) in proportion to his share, also must pay the expenses of maintaining it. The duty to maintain the premises of common use in the house and to pay for the expenses of maintenance and upkeep of a thing of common use in proportion to his share in the property also applied to those apartment owners, who have disconnected from the common heating system. The court admitted that the claimants’ claim to obligate the client to perform recalculation of distribution of heat energy is not legally valid or lawful and, therefore, must be dismissed.
We represented a national regulatory authority (the Authority) in an administrative dispute over the annulment of a resolution adopted by the Authority. Having heard the case, the Regional Administrative Court noted, inter alia, that the Authority was granted powers in the field of regulation and supervision over economic undertakings operating in the energy se...
Having examined the cassation appeal prepared by a lawyer of the Law Firm, the panel of judges of the Civil Cases Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania revoked a ruling of a regional court, which was unfavorable to the client, and left a decision of a court of first instance valid. The cassation case examined the interpretation and application of standards...
Having examined a cassation appeal drafted by the law firm, the panel of judges of the Civil Cases Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania repealed a decision of the district court, which was unfavorable to the client, and referred the case for rehearing to the court of appeal. The case examined the legal norms governing the conditions and procedure of remov...
We represented the Dutch investor in purchasing a shopping centre with the sales area of more than 20 000 square meters in Klaipėda. The lawyers of our law firm performed due diligence, prepared the necessary contractual documents and advised on all legal issues arising at the time of the transfer and acquisition of the property. The transaction was completed s...
The panel of judges of the Civil Cases Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, having examined a cassation appeal prepared by an advocate of the law firm, reversed judgements of the court of first instance and the appellate court unfavourable for our clients and remitted the case to the court of first instance for re-examination. The case was about the issu...