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 its ruling has, inter alia, noted that the purpose of concept of spread of the payment of the tax arrears is to ensure continuity of companies’ activities; therefore, the essential criterion which must be assessed by the tax administrator is maintenance of the company’s solvency which would later allow the company to fully perform its tax obligation. The chamber of judges has emphasised that when adopting the administrative decision of deferral or spread of payment of the tax arrears the tax administrator is, inter alia, bound by the principle of good administration on the basis of which the provision set forth in paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that state institutions shall serve the people is implemented. The chamber of judges has accepted the position of the court of first instance that the State Tax Inspectorate has failed to properly and fully evaluate the documents provided by the client and adopted its decision without analysing the consequences which could arise in case of refusal to satisfy the customer’s application for spread and/or deferral of the tax arrears. Thus, the State Tax Inspectorate has breached the principle of good administration and the court of the first instance has reasonably annulled the decision and referred the issue concerning deferral and/or spread of the customer’s tax arrears back to the tax administrator for reconsideration.
We represented an institution of public administration, i.e. a state institution of the Republic of Lithuania, in the administrative dispute concerning annulment of the decision and obligation to carry out actions. The regional administrative court which has heard the case has, inter alia, in its judgement noted that the diplomatic mission or consular post shall assume full responsibility in assessing whether there is an immigration risk. The purpose of examining visa applications is to detect those applicants who are seeking to immigrate to the Schengen States and set themselves up there, using grounds such as tourism, business, study, work or family visits as a pretext. According to the Code on Visas, a diplomatic mission or consular post shall refuse to issue a visa with a view to establish the purpose of the journey in case of any doubts as to authenticity of the provided and supported documents including the doubt as to veracity of their contents or the reliability of the information received during the interview. The Court has drawn the conclusion that the applicant has failed to justify the purpose and conditions of his stay in the Republic of Lithuania; therefore, it has ruled that the contested decision has been adopted after properly evaluating the facts and provisions of the legislation; thus, there exist no grounds for annulling it on the arguments set out in the applicant’s appeal or other arguments.
We represented our client in the office-related dispute with the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania concerning annulment of a part of the order. Having examined the appeal of the customer, the chamber of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in its ruling has, inter alia, emphasised that the court judgement must be lawful and well-grounded; the court judgement must address all main heads of claim raised by the applicant. The aim of the court in hearing the case is passing a lawful and well-grounded procedural decision; therefore, the court must exercise all its statutory duties and rights for the aim to be achieved. The court of first instance must examine all evidence, establish all facts and evaluate them in legal terms. According to the chamber of judges, in this case, the court of the first instance adjudicating the dispute analysed and addressed not all arguments of the client which may be relevant to fair decision of the case. The chamber of judges partially satisfied the customer’s appeal: the judgement of the regional administrative court which was unfavourable to the client has been annulled and the case was referred back to the court of first instance for rehearing.
We successfully represented a client in a court of appeal in a civil case for damages caused by unfair competition. The panel of judges of the Civil Cases Division of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, having examined the appeal prepared by advocates of the Law Firm, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance unfavourable for the client. In its judgmen...
We defended the client's interests in a civil case under a lawsuit filed against the client regarding the annulment of land donation agreements and the application of restitution. The Court which has heard the case has in its judgement, inter alia, stated that in pursuance of ensuring the stability of civil relations of public interest and adequacy of applicati...
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 ...
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)...
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 ...