The Court has ruled on lawfulness of the contracting authority’s decision on termination of the procurement procedures.
An attorney-at-law of Vilnius law firm SPES managed to prove in court that the Central Contracting Authority, in making the decision to terminate the public procurement procedures, did not violate the requirements of legal acts.
In the present case, the dispute has arisen over the Central Contracting Authority’s decision to terminate the public procurement procedures for purchase of goods which have become unnecessary to the contracting authority. The supplier which was dissatisfied with the decision brought a lawsuit against the indicated decision to the court. The attorney-at-law of the law firm has proved that, in the case in question, the Central Contracting Authority’s decision met the requirement of rational use of the funds applicable to the public procurement which would be definitely violated by the obligation to continue procedures where the need for the procedure has changed imposed on the contracting authority.
Having heard the case, the court has found that as the contracting authority objectively did not have financing and could not continue the procurement procedures, termination of the procurement is the only rational option. The obligation to continue the procurement and purchase the goods the need for which no longer exists, especially, given the lack of funding, would be incompatible with the purpose of the public procurement to conclude a public contract on purchase of the goods necessary for the contracting authority rationally using the allocated funds. Thus, the changed need of the contracting authority with regard to the subject of the procurement was recognized by the court as a circumstance which could not have been foreseen when announcing the procurement and which justified the termination of procurement procedures on the basis of Article 29 of the Law on Public Procurement.
We defended the interests of the client who purchased a company’s shares against unreasonable claims for annulment of the shares purchase-sale transaction.
An attorney-at-law of Vilnius law firm SPES successfully represented a client that purchased a company’s shares against the claims for annulment of the shares purchase-sale transaction on actio Pauliana grounds.
The attorney-at-law of the law firm has proved that the client was not involved in any unlawful agreements, did not help to conceal the debtor’s property and the shares purchase-sale transaction was consistent with the real intentions and objectives of the parties.
The court has found that the claimant has failed to prove the totally of the conditions of application of the institute of actio Pauliana, namely, has failed to prove unfairness of the parties to the transaction: the shares purchase-sale transaction was concluded because one of the shareholders sought to transfer the shares and withdraw from the company’s management due to disagreements with other shareholders and such transaction is fully consistent with the business logics and shows that by concluding the transaction the parties have not implemented any concealed unlawful objectives.
Victory in the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania: a client of the law firm will not have to comply with the decision of the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture on repayment of the funds of the support.
An attorney-at-law of Vilnius law firm SPES successfully defended a client’s interests in the dispute with the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture concerning repayment of the funds of the support amounting to EUR 200,000.
The National Paying Agency took a decision on termination of the support agreement and recovery of the funds of the support as it had suspicions that the client of the law firm allegedly failed to comply with the support agreement and failed to carry out rural tourism activities which the client undertook to carry out under the agreement.
By a final court ruling the court declared the sanction imposed by the National Payment Agency unlawful, explained that the sanction must be imposed in accordance with the principles of dissuasion and proportionality and imposition of disproportionate and inadequate sanctions does not comply with the constitutional principle of the legal rule, good faith and reasonableness requirements. The court has explained that even if any infringements in absorption of funds of the support are found and the support agreement is performed, termination of the agreement and recovery of the total amount of the support may be only an exceptional measure; in each particular case, the imposed sanctions must be reasonable and chosen by properly individualising the committed infringement and evaluating the consequences of the infringement.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania spoke on the allocation of the burden of proof in tax disputes between the parties.The Attorney at Law of Vilnius law firm SPES successfully represented the client in the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania during the tax dispute.The dispute in the case arose because the tax administrator, through property app...
The court spoke on the importance and consequences of (not)contesting the conditions of public procurement. We defended the client’s interests in a public procurement case heard by the Lithuanian Court of Appeal. In its decision, the appellate court noted, among other things, that the procurement documents must be accurate, clear and unambiguous. The cont...
The Court clarified in the public procurement case that a tender with a negative value shall not, in its own right, be considered as illegal Attorney-at-law of Vilnius law firm SPES succeeded in convincing the court that the Central Procurement Organisation implemented legal and transparent public procurement procedures, which resulted in contract being aw...
The interests of the former director of a bankrupt company were defended.The firm’s lawyer successfully represented the interests of a client — the former director of a bankrupt company — in civil proceedings for recognising the bankruptcy as fraudulent.The administrator of the bankrupt company applied to the court asking to declare the compan...
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 circumst...