SEPTEMBER 2019

We defended the client’s interests in the civil case in which the claim was brought against the client for indemnification of damages exceeding EUR 200 000. The Regional Court, having examined the case, pointed out that at the customer’s request the contractor must carry out all works of removal of defects or damage during the guarantee term. The contractor must carry out the works for own account and at own risk if those works are related to materials that are incompatible with the contract, the  works of inadequate quality or the non-fulfilment of any contractual obligation of the contractor. It was established in the case that breakdowns of items produced by the applicant occurred before expiration of the guarantee term. Having considered those circumstances, the Court concluded that it is the applicant who must prove that the client is guilty for breakdowns of the items; in such case, the client would be deprived of the right to elimination of defects. The court emphasised that the Court has no duty to collect evidence in the cases of such type, while the evidence gathered did not prove the validity of the applicant’s claims. The action was dismissed and the payment of litigation costs was ordered in the client’s favour.
 
We represented the client – the waste management system operator in the administrative dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency on the cancellation of its decision. The Regional Administrative Court, having examined the dispute, noted, inter alia, that the principle of legality in the sphere of public administration means that activities of entities of public administration must meet the requirements of legal acts, decisions taken by them must be based on the rules of law and the content of those decisions must meet the requirements of the rules of law. In order to adopt an administrative legal act, entities of public administration must have the appropriate reasons, instead of presenting any reasons in order to satisfy formal requirements. Furthermore, in observance of the principle of objectivity, decisions of an entity of public administration must correspond to the facts established after clarifying all circumstances relevant for the adoption of the decision and critically and objectively assessing the evidence.The Court established that the Environmental Protection Agency incorrectly interpreted provisions of legal acts relevant for the case and, consequently, the appealed decision was dismissed. The defendant was obligated to re-examine the client’s application and to take a new decision in line with requirements of laws.
 
We successfully represented the client – the heat and hot water supplier before the appellate court in the civil dispute regarding recalculation of the distribution of heat energy in a multi-dwelling building. The Court which examined the case, inter alia, noted that in the event of continuing legal relationships of purchase–sale of heat energy the contractual relationships of the parties must be adjusted when legal regulation changes and such adjustment of energy purchase–sale contracts does not contradict lex retro non agit principle (the law has no retroactive effect) and provisions of Article 6.157(2) of the Civil Code. The appellate court concluded that there was no ground for changing or cancelling the decision of the court of first instance. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed.

  • 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)...