NOVEMBER 2019

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 court of appeal instance noted in its ruling that, among other things, the establishment of alternative means of defence of a purchaser’s rights means that after application of one way of defence for ensuring the purchaser’s right to get an item of appropriate quality the purchaser has no legal basis to demand that under the same actual circumstances with regard to the defects in the quality of a sold item the seller would be liable in any other way as well because contractual obligations arising out of certain defects in an item have already expired. The purchaser may choose another way of defence/protection of breached rights only after the discovery of new defects in the quality of an item. The court stated that the claimant chose the way of defence of its violated rights and expressed the desire to protect its rights demanding to remove defects in the products; the defects were removed; for this reason, the claimant could not protect its violated rights employing any other means of protection of a purchaser’s rights as specified in Article 6.334(1) of the Civil Code; in other words, the claimant could not demand to terminate the purchase and sale contract and apply restitution. The appeal was not satisfied, litigation costs were awarded in favour of the client.
 
We represented a client (supplier) in a case of public procurement based on a claim filed by the client against the purchasing authority with regard to the annulment of its decision. Having considered the case the regional court, among other things, noted that the procurement terms and conditions must be explicit and clear both to the suppliers and to the purchasing authorities so that the first ones could properly draw up and submit proposals (tenders) in compliance with the purchasers’ needs, and the latter ones could evaluate the submitted tenders equally according to the procurement terms and conditions. Purchasing authorities assess suppliers’ tenders exclusively according to the terms and conditions of public procurement; in any case, purchasing authorities cannot reject a supplier’s tender based on the requirements which were not explicitly publicised in advance, regardless of the fact that the need of their fulfilment arises out of the application of other special legal acts. The court found that the client provided a document meeting the procurement terms and conditions which did not include or did not single out certain procedures of completion of construction works the inclusion of which were not required in advance in the procurement documents. The schedule on completion of works submitted by the client and the timeframe for performance of works specified therein were in line with and did not conflict with the general period of time specified by the purchasing authority in the explanation of public procurement (tender) documents and also met the requirements set for a public tender. The purchasing authority violated the prohibition to set forth new requirements to suppliers after the submission of tenders; for this reason, a decision adopted on the basis of new requirements of the purchasing authority could not be considered lawful and reasonable. The court annulled the decision of the purchasing authority by which the client’s tender was rejected and ruled that litigation costs incurred by the client had to be covered by the purchasing authority for the benefit of the client.
 
We represented a public administration institution – a state authority of the Republic of Lithuania – before the court of appeal instance in a civil dispute over refutation of data which undermined honour and dignity. Having considered the case, the chamber of judges of civil cases of Vilnius Regional Court noted, among other things, in its ruling that honour and dignity under Article 2.24 of the Civil Code are protected after identification  of the totality of the following facts: first, the fact of publicising the data, second, the fact that all details relate to the claimant, third, the fact that the publicised data is erroneous (does not meet the reality), and fourth, the fact that the data abases the person’s honour and dignity. To properly differentiate between a message/information and opinion, the most important thing is to assess the context of the respective article, the author’s formulations/ideas, whether publicised information is understood as an undisputable fact or as his personal evaluation of certain facts.  A message/information is subject to the criterion of truth; its existence may be verified against evidence and may be identified objectively. An opinion may have a sufficient factual basis but is subjective; for this reason, it is not subject to the criteria of truth and accuracy; rightness of an opinion does not require evidence and proof. The court of appeal instance did not identify that the publicised information was not in line with the reality or that it was erroneous. Therefore, the chamber of judges agreed with the view of the court of first instance that there were no necessary conditions to protect the claimant’s honour and dignity; in short, no unambiguous conclusion could be drawn that the information was publicised/disseminated and that it did not meet the reality. The appeal was not satisfied, litigation costs were awarded in favour of the client.

  • OCTOBER 2020

    The interests of the former director of a bankrupt company were defended.The firm’s lawyer successfully represented the interests of a client — the former director of a bankrupt company — in civil proceedings for recognising the bankruptcy as fraudulent.The administrator of the bankrupt company applied to the court asking to declare the compan...

  • SEPTEMBER 2020

    The court ruled on the right of the insurer to change the grounds for refusal to pay out an insurance benefit.We defended the client’s interests in a civil dispute with the insurance company over award of the insurance benefit and damage. The court which has heard the case in its judgement, inter alia, stated that the insurer must investigate the circumst...

  • AUGUST 2020

    The court has resolved a dispute between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania imprisoned in the USA on whom a capital punishment has been imposed.An attorney-at-law of the law firm has successfully represented a client, i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the dispute with a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania imprison...

  • JULY 2020

    We have proven that our client conducted a lawful and transparent public procurement. We represented our client, i.e. waste management system organiser, in a dispute which has arisen out of the legal relations of public procurement. The attorneys-at-law of the law firm successfully proved that the client conducted a transparent and lawful public procuremen...

  • JUNE 2020

    The court ruled on the possibility of applying subsidiary civil liability to the head of a legal person in case the company does not properly fulfill the obligation to pay taxes to the state on time. Attorney at Law of our firm succeeded in defending a client’s interests in the court of appeal. The State Tax Inspectorate (STI) sought to prove that be...