OCTOBER 2019

We successfully represented the interests of the Municipality of Ukmergė District and UAB “Ukmergės šiluma” in a dispute with the former tenant (operator) of the municipality’s heating sector regarding compensation for losses. The judicial panel of the Civil Case Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, having examined the cassation appeal drafted by the lawyer of the firm, changed the unfavorable to the client judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania. The judicial panel of the Court of Cassation noted in its judgement that, inter alia, neither party has the right to become enriched without just cause either because of the performance of the contract, or because of its expiration. Since the claimant had to be reimbursed for the completed modernisation of the heat sector by being given the right to operate in the aforementioned sector for a set period of time, there are no reasons to believe that, having exercised this right for 2/3 of the aforementioned period, the claimant has the right to recover the total value of heating sector improvement, which was described in the Modernisation Contract as compensation to the defendants (the clients) for the right given to the claimant. Such interpretation of the contract would be unfair for the defendants because, since the defendants have fulfilled a major part of their obligation, the claimant would be essentially exempt from its obligation to transfer all improvements to the defendants for LTL 1, while the defendants would be forced to pay the full market value for them. The judicial panel, taking into account that the defendants fulfilled 2/3 of the period of their obligation stipulated in the Modernisation Contract properly, decided that 1/3 of the value of heat sector improvements should be awarded to the claimant for the remaining part of the contract period that was not performed. As a result, the amount of EUR 1,696,039.45, which was awarded to the claimant by the Court of Appeal of Lithuania as compensation for heat sector improvements, was reduced almost six times: to EUR 285,997.16.  
 
We provided necessary legal services to the client in the legal process regarding the recognition of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the permission to implement the decision in the Republic of Lithuania. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania considered the client’s application and noted in its procedural decision that, inter alia, Article V of the New York Convention provides for an exhaustive list of potential grounds for not recognising a decision of a court of arbitration, therefore, the procedure of recognising the decisions of foreign courts of arbitration and the permission to implement them means checking whether grounds stipulated in Article V of the New York Convention are present or not. The court that examined the matter of recognising the decision of the court of arbitration and the permission to implement it does not have the right to examine the substance of the case, to find out whether the arbitrators identified the factual circumstances of the case correctly, whether they examined and evaluated the evidence properly, whether they interpreted and applied the law properly, etc. In this case, the judicial panel did not identify grounds for not recognising the decision of the court of arbitration stipulated in Article V(1) and (2) of the New York Convention; therefore, it ruled that the decision of the court of arbitration should be recognised and allowed to be implemented in the Republic of Lithuania.
 
We represented a client- a waste management system organizer- in a civil dispute with a seller of underground containers regarding the termination of the contract being declared unlawful and the obligation to accept the performance of the contract. The district court that examined the dispute noted in its decision that, inter alia, the obligation of one party to fulfil its contractual obligation matches the right of claim of the other party, which is protected by law, as contractual liability may be imposed for failing to fulfil or for inadequately fulfilling contractual obligations (Article 6.256(1) of the Civil Code).  The principles of a contract being binding and enforceable (pacta sunt servanda), on which contractual relations are based on, mean that any inadequate performance of the contract means a breach of contract, for which the contract party that fails to fulfil its obligations is responsible. The court noted that the claimant did not provide any evidence that the actually delivered containers meet the requirements of technical specifications. According to the provisions of the signed contracts, goods may be accepted only after inspection, by signing a tripartite statement of transfer and acceptance. In addition, before the statement of transfer and acceptance of the goods is signed, the customer (the client) has the right to demand that the goods that do not meet the contractual requirements be replaced with goods that meet the contractual requirements or that the identified faults be fixed; therefore, there are insufficient grounds for the customer to assess that the containers that were intended to be delivered meet all contractual requirements without inspecting them. Most of the claims were dismissed as unfounded.

  • 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)...