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.

  • 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...

  • 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 applicati...

  • 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)...