JANUARY 2019

We successfully represented our client, i.e. district heat supplier, in the civil case concerning declaration of disconnection from the district heating system unlawful and obligation to connect to the district heating system adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Lithuania. The chamber of judges of the court of cassation which has heard the case has, inter alia, noted that the access to justice does not imply that the person may request for protection of the right of any person from infringements; it implies the possibility for access to justice to protect his/her subjective right or statutory interest. The court has emphasised that the association of owners of multi-apartment building is not the entity which can protect the public interest and has failed to prove the material legal interest of the entities represented by it and this per se constitutes grounds for dismissing the action. The chamber of judges has also approved the position of the attorney-at-law that the head of claim for acknowledging that disconnection of the system of heating of the premises belonging to the defendant from the district heating system of the multi-dwelling building was unlawful raised by the action cannot be considered as an independent subject of the action, since its satisfaction in the case would not cause material legal consequences. This part of the case was terminated.

 

We have protected the client’s interests in the civil case concerning the legal relationship arising out of bills of exchange. In the present case, it was requested to award more than EUR 280,000 from the client on the basis of the promissory note issued 10 years ago. The regional court which has adjudicated the case has, inter alia, held in its judgement that the provisions of subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Law on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes suggest the conclusion that upon expiry of the time limits for submission of non-accepted non-protestable promissory note for payment set forth in the law, it loses the status of the security and object of civil rights; consequently, the provisions of the law concerning the procedure for satisfaction of the claims arising out of the promissory note and relationship between the persons who have assumed obligations under the promissory note are not applicable any longer. Nevertheless, this does not automatically mean that the transaction on the basis of which the promissory note was issued is invalid or non-existing. If the debtor has failed to perform the transaction on the basis of which the promissory note was issued, in case of a judicial dispute, the creditor may use such document to prove existence of the respective legal relationship arising out of obligations. According to the court, in the context of the circumstances of this case, as there are no other data supporting the circumstances concerning transfer of cash to the defendants as specified by the beneficiary of the promissory note, the explanations of the holder of the promissory note are not sufficient; therefore, the court considered the fact of transfer of cash as not proven. On the contrary, the court has acknowledged that the defendant as the issuer of the promissory note has provided a sufficient amount of data rebutting his obligation under the contested promissory note. The action has been rejected.

 

We represented a public administration institution, i.e. public institution of the Republic of Lithuania, in the administrative dispute concerning annulment of its decision and the obligation to carry out actions. The regional administrative court which has adjudicated the case has, inter alia, noted that hearing of the administrative cases concerning lawfulness of the legal acts adopted by public administration entities and actions (omission of action) affecting the persons’ rights or statutory interests falls within the competence of administrative courts. Where the act or action appealed against evidently has no legal consequences, it cannot be the object of dispute in the administrative court. In the light of the fact that the notification appealed against by the applicant is only a model form document whereby the applicant was notified of the adopted decision, the court has ruled that it cannot be an independent object of the administrative dispute. Furthermore, the chamber of judges has accepted the arguments of the attorney-at-law of the law firm that the decision adopted by the institution and appealed against by the applicant is based on the established facts and the rules of the legal acts; therefore, it dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ungrounded.

  • DECEMBER 2018

    We represented a contracting authority in a public procurement case for the annulment of its decisions. The panel of judges of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania having heard the case in an appellate procedure noted, inter alia, that when preparing their tenders for the procurement of goods, suppliers must follow official recommendations and...

  • NOVEMBER 2018

    The chamber of judges of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania upheld the judgement of the regional court which was favourable to the client of the law firm in the civil case concerning annulment of the construction completion declaration and the contract, application of restitution and other heads of claim. The dispute in the case in question ...

  • OCTOBER 2018

    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 paragrap...

  • SEPTEMBER 2018

    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...

  • AUGUST 2018

    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...

>> Archive