DECEMBER 2020

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 content of the procurement conditions must be clear to both suppliers and contracting authorities, so that the former can properly formulate and submit tenders that meet the needs of the buyers, and the latter can evaluate them equally in accordance with the procurement conditions. The conditions of the procurement must be announced in advance, understood equally by everybody and remain unchanged during the public procurement.
The court found that in the event of a dispute, the conditions of the procurement had been made public from the moment the procurement was announced. The claimant, having the right to use the review procedure of the contracting authority’s decision and to contest such procurement conditions, did not contest them, nor did the claimant apply to the contracting authority for explanation and/or clarification of the procurement conditions. Non-contestation of the procurement conditions means their acceptance, in which case the suppliers’ offers are evaluated based on their compliance with the procurement conditions.
The court acknowledged that the client of the law firm – the contracting authority – followed the previously published procurement documents, and none of the procurement documents had been changed or revised since their publication. The appeal of the opponents was dismissed and the costs were awarded in favor of the client.
 
We defended the client’s ownership in a dispute of extremely high value.

The lawyers of the Vilnius law firm SPES, in cooperation with colleagues from another law firm, defended the property rights of clients in a complex and long-running litigation.
The opponents in the case sought to prove that the firm’s clients had illegally registered ownership of the property because it was not the subject-matter of a real estate purchase and sale transaction.
The firm’s lawyers have succeeded in proving that the will of the parties at the time of the transaction is decisive in interpreting the terms of the contract and defining the subject-matter of the contract. After evaluating a number of documents signed by the parties, actions taken and their behavior after the transaction, the court found that the will of the parties at the time of the transaction reveals that the object of the dispute has been transferred to the firm’s clients.
In addition, the court found that the object of the dispute was, among other things, the dependent of the main object which was the subject matter of the transaction. The court clarified that the registration of an immovable object in a public register by giving it a unique number does not change the purpose of the object and the connection with other objects, i. e. does not deny the status of the object as dependent. The provisions of the Law on the Real Estate Register (Articles 9, 10 and others) do not regulate or determine the object or its part cannot be recognized as a dependent of the object solely due to its registration or due to its properties such as formation as a separate object of real estate or assignment of a unique number.The status of an object is determined by its purpose and functional connection with another – main – object.

  • APRIL 2021

    The court has ruled on the legality of the contracting authority’s decision to terminate the procurement procedure Attorney at Law of Law Firm SPES has managed to prove in court that the decision of the contracting authority to terminate the public procurement procedure was legitimate.Court of Appeal of Lithuania, which examined the case, has clarifi...

  • MARCH 2021

    The Court has clarified the conditions under which an agreement on default interest may be deemed contrary to public order (Article 1.81 of the Civil Code). Attorney at Law of law firm SPES has successfully defended the right of the client (creditor) to claim 0,2% default interest from the debtor as specified in the contract. In the case in question, ...

  • FEBRUARY 2021

    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 t...

  • JANUARY 2021

    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...

  • NOVEMBER 2020

    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...