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 that suppliers could present their tenders and the contracting authority could procure what is actually needed. The procurement terms must be announced in advance, understood by everyone in the same way and not changed in the course of the public procurement. The significance of the will and intentions of the contracting authorities regarding the content of the procurement terms decreases if the contracting authorities express them (their will and intentions) in the procurement terms improperly and in a manner making it difficult to understand them. The content of the terms of the tender procedure must be determined based on positions of potential participants of the public procurement. The burden of risk of adverse effects caused by unclear, inaccurate and ambiguous provisions of the procurement documents lies with the contracting authority. The situation where participants are to decide on relevant terms by simultaneously evaluating documents of different character, comparing the content and differences of such documents, and qualifying these as adjustments or elimination of gaps and defects, is not in line with the duty of contracting authorities to set clear requirements for suppliers. The Court stated that the procurement documents did not contain a requirement for the supplier to perform construction completion procedures, therefore, the decision of the contracting authority to reject the client’s tender offer submitted in the public procurement by reason that it did not meet the requirements which were not set in the procurement terms, was unlawful and was validly cancelled by the court of first instance. The appeal of the contracting authority was rejected, the client was awarded the litigation costs.
 
We represented a client in a labor dispute with the State Data Protection Inspectorate for the annulment of its decision. The panel of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, having examined the client’s appeal, noted in its ruling inter alia that the regional administrative court, when examining the complaint of the person who applied for defence in court, had not pronounced on all the essential arguments presented in the complaint, simply confirming the commitment of all the acts that the client (the appellant) was charged of, without pronouncing on them separately. That is not in line with Article 86 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings. It is only after performance of the evaluation of the reasonableness and lawfulness of the scope of legal qualification that a conclusion on the proportionality of the imposed sanction type could be made. For the reasons set out above, the appeal was satisfied in part – the case was remitted to the court of first instance for re-examination in order to check lawfulness and reasonableness of each charge of violation of legal rules.
 
We have defended in court the client’s right to hunt in a hunting areas used by a hunters’ and fishermen's club. The court that settled the case initiated by the client noted in its judgement inter alia that amateur hunting is a leisure activity, therefore, relationships of members of the association, which unites hunters, are based on the principles of equal rights and mutual understanding, the commonness of interests. Members’ rights and lawful interests cannot be ignored, conditions discriminating them cannot be created or creation of conditions for exercise of member’s rights cannot be imitated. Having determined that the association, which was the defendant in this case, infringed upon the claimant’s (the client’s) rights, it was obligated to eliminate the infringement. The claimant has the right to hunt and exercise other rights of the association member, whereas the defendant has the duty to create real conditions and opportunities for the exercise of such rights.

  • 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)...

  • NOVEMBER 2019

    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 ...

  • OCTOBER 2019

    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 ...

  • SEPTEMBER 2019

    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...

>> Archive