MARCH 2020

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 application of civil liability measures, any deterioration of the relations between the parties to the contract of donation cannot constitute grounds for annulment of the contract. Therefore, the legislator has set forth annulment of the contract of donation in Article 6.472 of the Civil Code as an exceptional measure linking its application with the respective legal grounds, i.e. actions of donation demonstrating exceptional ingratitude to the donor which are not justified according to the generally accepted moral standards. Such circumstances have not been established in the case. Obviously, there is a legally contradictory situation between the parties which requires solution; nevertheless, in the present case it cannot be dealt with in the manner chosen by the plaintiff. The action has been dismissed, the litigation costs have been awarded for the benefit of the client.
 
We represented our client, i.e. an organiser of the waste management system, in an administrative dispute regarding award of the overpayment of the local fees and charges. The Regional Administrative Court which has adjudicated the dispute has in its judgement, inter alia, noted that paragraph 1 of Article 302 of the Law on Waste Management sets forth the principle of solidarity in determination of the pricing of services of municipal waste management. This implies that a person who is a payer of the local fees and charges together with other payers of the local fees and charges shall collectively cover all municipal waste management and disposal costs irrespective of the method of calculation of the rate of the local fees and charges (taking into account the amount of waste or area of the held real property). This, in turn, determines that even in cases where the payer of the local fees and charges fails to actually deliver municipal waste to his waste manager during the respective periods, he must still pay the minimum local fees and charges. The Court has dismissed the applicant’s arguments that she had to pay only for the amount of waste actually transferred for management as ungrounded. The appeal has been dismissed, the litigation costs have been awarded for the benefit of the client.
 
We represented our client in an administrative dispute with Vilnius District Municipality Administration concerning annulment of the decision and related claims. Having examined the appeal lodged by the client, the chamber of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has in its ruling, inter alia, noted that the provisions of Article 8 of the Law on Public Administration imply that the act shall set out the main facts, arguments and evidence, state the legal grounds on the basis of which the entity of public administration relied in passing the administrative act; the reasoning shall be adequate, clear and sufficient. In verification of the decision of the entity of public administration (in the generic sense) in terms of the afore-mentioned legal rules, it must be established if the person to whom the act is addressed could and should, in principle, perceive (understand) the factual and legal grounds of the adopted decision, the reasons for its adoption. The chamber of judges of the court of appeal has decided that the court of first instance has unreasonably acknowledged that, in principle, the decision of the municipality administration meets the requirements of the Law on Public Administration; therefore, the contested decision has been annulled and the defendant has been obliged to re-examine the client’s application and pass an individual administrative act meeting the provisions of the Law on Public Administration.

  • 2020 GEGUŽĖ

    Žemės ūkio paskirties žemės nuoma nuomininkui savaime nesukuria pirmumo teisės įsigyti nuomojamą žemę.  Apgynėme kliento interesus teisminiame ginče pagal  žemės ūkio paskirties žemės nuomininko reikalavimą perkelti jam žemės sklypo pirkėjo teises ir pareigas.Kontoros advokatui pavyko įrodyti, kad vien formalus žemės ūkio paskirties žemės nuomos sutar...

  • APRIL 2020

    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...

  • FEBRUARY 2020

    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 ...

  • JANUARY 2020

    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 i...

  • DECEMBER 2019

    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)...