AUGUST 2019

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 work or for any reasons related to an employer’s operations, where a function performed by an employee becomes redundant. The court acknowledged that the director of the company made a decision to dismiss the claimant not for the reason of a conflict among them but for economic and organisational reasons, namely, the company decided that from the point of view of business it would be more cost-efficient to purchase the remaining functions performed by the dismissed employee from a company/companies which provide corresponding services, and, eventually, the company did that. The court ruled that the head of the company was reasonably looking for a solution which would be most cost-effective for his business. As a business entity, the company has the right and, actually, must organise its operations in the manner which, in view of the company, seems most suitable for its business. The court has no authority to evaluate the relevance or appropriateness and validity of the reduction of staff resulting for economic reasons. In other words, it cannot assess whether an employer has deliberately and justifiably given up one or another position of staff because this issue does not fall within the competence of the court. The claim was rejected and the claimant was ordered to pay the client the litigation costs incurred.
 
We represented a client in a civil case on modification of loan contracts and annulment of enforcement orders. In its ruling, the court which considered the case, inter alia noted that pursuant to Article 6.2284of the Civil Code, only terms and conditions of a consumer credit contract, which had not been individually discussed and agreed on by the parties and which for the reason of the requirement for fairness/honesty substantially disturbed the balance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the prejudice of the consumer, should be considered unfair and invalid through a court proceeding. The court emphasised that the claimant admitted that the conditions of the issue of a loan offered to the client of the office were beneficial and that he familiarised himself with the terms and conditions of the contract and that the amounts of payments were individually discussed and that the claimant understood these conditions and they were clear to him. In addition, the claimant acknowledged that information on his income and other property were indicated incorrectly and dishonestly by the claimant; for this reason, the court ruled that there was a basis to agree with the statements of the attorney of the law firm, namely, that the claimant had no right to challenge the individually agreed and signed contract provisions on the basis of Article 6.2284of the Civil Code; especially for the reason that the claimant was dishonest when signing the contract. The claim was rejected; the client had the litigation costs adjudicated.
 
We represented a client in a civil dispute arising from legal relations of hunting. Having considered the case, the court concluded in its ruling that responsibility for the damage caused by the game to the land crops and agricultural holdings may be borne both by the users of the hunting areas (hunters) and by the owners of the land parcels, their managers and users, where they failed to take appropriate measures to protect the crops from the damage caused by the game. Omission by the owners, managers and users of land plots, which led to the occurrence or increase in losses, may be the basis for not attaching civil liability to the person responsible for causing damage or for releasing the person from civil liability completely or partially (Article 6.253(1) and Article 6.253(5) of the Civil Code). The court established that the claimant failed to present evidence proving that additional, reasonable measures were taken to protect the crops; for this reason, the court ruled that the claim could not be regarded as reasonable. The claim was rejected; the client had the litigation costs adjudicated.

  • JULY 2019

    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...

  • JUNE 2019

    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...

  • MAY 2019

    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...

  • APRIL 2019

    The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania upheld the judgement of the regional administrative court favourable to our client in the administrative case according to the client’s complaint against the State Tax Inspectorate. The Chamber of Judges in its ruling has noted that the decision of the tax administrator is an individual legal act (individual a...

  • FEBRUARY 2019

    We successfully represented interests of the provider of the bail at the Supreme Court of Lithuania in solving the question of the repayment of the financial bail in criminal case. The panel of judges noted that a pre-trial measure - financial bail – cannot be a means of securing a civil claim, nor can it serve the purposes of criminal punishment. The Sup...

>> Archive