Year: 2025

Selling products without the consent of the trade mark owner. What are the risks?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

In international trade, every step in the use of a trademark must be based on the express consent of the owner. Failure to do so may result in even original goods being subject to illegal distribution.

TheCourt of Appeal of Lithuania has confirmed that Greita upė UAB illegally distributed Chupa Chups carbonated beverages made in South Korea because it did not have the trademark owner - the Italian company Perfetti Van Melle s.p.a. - with the consent of the other party. The court banned the further sale of such products on the EU market and awarded damages of €20,000.

The Court found that the South Korean producer had been granted a licence to supply beverages to the European Union only through three clearly named companies. "The drinks were not purchased by Greita rivers from these official suppliers, but from a Latvian company which was not authorised to sell Chupa Chups drinks for the EU market. Moreover, the packaging with Korean inscriptions confirmed that the product was intended for the South Korean market only. These circumstances mean that the goods appeared on the EU market without the authorisation of the rightful owner, which qualifies as an infringement of intellectual property rights.

The Lithuanian company defended itself by arguing that the goods had been purchased from a third party operating in the European Union, Top Food SIA, and that, in its view, the claimant should have brought all claims for infringement of the trade mark proprietor's rights against the third party, and not against the respondent.Otherwise, a precedent would be established where the final purchaser of the goods would be required to prove the previous chain of acquisition of the goods back to their manufacturer, notwithstanding the fact that the goods were acquired after they had already entered the European Union market.Therefore, in the view of the company's representatives, the defendant's acquisition of the goods was lawful and not in breach of the legal requirements.

However, the courts were not persuaded by such arguments and ultimately held that the mere fact that the defendant acquired the goods at issue from a Latvian company did not constitute a basis for finding that the applicant's rights as the proprietor of the trade marks had lapsed.The mere placing on the market of goods bearing the relevant trade mark in the European Union (EEA) must not be construed as extinguishing (exhausting) the applicant's rights in the trade mark registered and protected in its name.

"This case is a classic example of how a misunderstanding of the legality of a supply chain can lead to significant legal consequences. The mere fact that the goods were purchased legally does not in any way mean that the owner of the trademark loses all his rights to the trademark," says Mantas Baigys, an attorney at law at AVOCAD .

According to the lawyer, it was not for the trader to prove that the soft drinks bearing the trademarks 'CHUPA CHUPS' had been purchased on the European Union market, but that they had been placed on the market in the Member States of the European Union with the applicant's consent.

Key lessons for business

Legal analysis - Before importing products, it is necessary to assess whether the marketing of certain products under specific trademarks will infringe the intellectual property rights of that owner. Failure to do so may result in the cessation of all trade, the destruction of all products and the payment of all material and non-material damages to the owner of that trade mark.

Drafting the contract properly - Record all verbal confirmations by the distributor in a written agreement on the ownership of the intellectual property, and remember to include clauses on liability in the event of a counterfactual.

Proper legal prevention will avoid unpleasant, time-consuming and costly litigation, which can lead not only to negative financial consequences, but also to reputational damage to the business itself, without the consent of the trademark owner.

 

The public question: why the same crime but different punishment?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Judicial decisions - especially in criminal cases - are constantly debated in the public sphere. The public often asks: why does one person get, say, 12 years for a certain offence, while another gets only six, even though the nature of the crime seems identical? This question has been raised once again by the high-profile case of sexual violence against minors.

According to Egidijus Kieras of AVOCAD, different sentences for seemingly identical crimes are not a sign of judicial arbitrariness. On the contrary, he said, it reflects an individual application of justice based on the circumstances of the particular case, the logic of the law and a clearly defined methodology.

Average sentences - a guide for courts

Egidijus Kieras points out that under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC), each crime is punishable by a range of sentences - for example, murder can be punishable by between 7 and 15 years of imprisonment. However, this does not mean that all convicted persons automatically receive an "average" of 11 years. Courts look at the so-called average sentence - a mathematical point between the minimum and maximum sentence, which acts as a reference point. The court "steps" from this average to one side or the other, depending on the aggravating or mitigating circumstances found in a particular case.

What determines whether a sentence increases or decreases?

The court must look at the whole context of the crime, not just the name. Here are some examples. Aggravating circumstances that lead to a harsher sentence:

  • The offence has been committed repeatedly;
  • The crime was committed out of selfish motives;
  • Victim - a minor or vulnerable person;
  • The crime was committed by a group of people acting together.

Mitigating circumstances that may lead to a reduction of the sentence:

  • Guilty plea;
  • Sincere regret;
  • Cooperation with law enforcement;
  • Compensating or attempting to compensate for damages;
  • Influence of personal illness, addiction, psychological state.

Emotions vs. legal criteria

In a high-profile case of sexual violence against boys, the public is shocked not only by the crime itself, but also by what some consider a "too light" punishment. However, this case illustrates once again that a court cannot rely on emotions, but only on the facts and legal circumstances of the case. If a person has cooperated with law enforcement, has confessed, has shown remorse, and may have no previous convictions, all of this has legal significance. In this case, the sentence imposed, although it may have upset many people, was probably motivated by all the criteria set out in the law. Often in cases of this kind, the lawyer says, punishment is not the only element of the court's decision - probation supervision, registration in the sex offenders' register, therapeutic measures, etc. may be ordered.

When imposing a sentence, the court must give detailed reasons why it has imposed that sentence. The court's decision is not an opinion, but the totality of the facts analysed, the law and the assessments made. "However, the role of the public is also important in this process - not just to read the headlines, but to read the court rulings, to study the circumstances of the case, to understand the logic of the criminal procedure," emphasises Mr Kieras.

Changes in legal technique don't change the substance: the "average" hasn't gone anywhere

The amendment to Article 61(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which entered into force on 1 January 2024, abolished the previous obligation to calculate the sentence from the average. Until then, the law stated that, in the presence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court should focus on the average sentence, and move away from it depending on the weight of the circumstances. The amendment has made this wording more flexible, giving the court more discretion.

However, according to AVOCAD's lawyer Egidijus Kieras, actual case law shows that the "principle of averages" continues to be one of the main points of reference for sentencing:

"Yes, technically the imperative is no longer there, but in the structure of most sentences it is very clear that the courts are still taking an average approach. In terms of motivation, it seems that only the concept has disappeared, but not the principle itself", says Kieras.

This is particularly important from the point of view of legal interpretation. Consistency and transparency in sentencing requires a certain degree of methodological consistency. And while the wording of the law may change, the reasoning of the courts must remain sound, comparable and predictable. In other words, the idea of the "average" - as a reference point - remains alive in both professional judicial logic and academic doctrine. It is a part of the architecture of the law that cannot be so easily disconnected from the actual sentencing process, even if it is no longer formally part of the law. This situation reveals a broader insight: changes in legal technique do not necessarily change the substance of the law, as long as the logic remains the same in practice. This shows once again that case law is often more stable than the wording of laws.

Criminal law - accountability based on reasoning, not emotion

As Egidijus Kieras, a lawyer at AVOCAD, points out, criminal law in Lithuania is quite balanced, but its application requires not only professionalism, but also consistent public education. This depends not only on confidence in justice, but also on a healthier public opinion. "When you know how punishment is actually shaped, you are less inclined to shout 'the court is incompetent'," says Kieras. Different sentences for the "same" crime do not mean inequality - they reflect the principle of individual justice. Each person is unique, each case is different. Justice is not a mathematical exercise - it is a profound process in which both the law and the person matter.

Restrictions on gambling advertising: when legal uncertainty becomes a threat to sport and reputation

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

The tightening of restrictions on gambling advertising raises not only the question of the application of the law, but also the logic of the regulation itself. The amendments to the Gambling Law in Lithuania, which came into force on 1 July 2025, have become one of the most stringent in Europe, extending the ban on advertising so broadly that it has affected not only gambling operators, but also sports clubs, the media, event organisers, and the communications industry. While the state's objective of protecting the population from gambling harm is understandable, there is clearly a lack of a clear and unified regulatory position on what exactly constitutes "prohibited advertising". This legal vacuum is unfortunately filled not by legal interpretation but by threatening public letters.

LKL case - voltage indicator for the whole system

The publicity surrounding the appeal of the Gambling Supervision Authority (GSA) to the Lithuanian Basketball League (LKL), which mentions a possible violation of gambling advertising and even possible legal action, raises serious questions not only about the form but also about the content. "This is the first time that a letter sent to a business or a sport sounds like an ultimatum rather than an explanation. This is particularly problematic when there are no sufficiently clarified legal guidelines," says Egidijus Langys, managing partner of AVOCAD, who also represents the Jonava CBet team.

The Authority says one thing and does another

The Gambling Supervisory Authority says on its official website that it aims to help businesses understand the new requirements and comply with the law. In reality, however, this position is not always matched by action: letters to sports organisations are worded in a harsh and intimidating tone, based on vague criteria and without clear methodological guidelines. "When a supervisory authority takes strong action, it is essential to make sure that it itself has sufficient legal competence and clear rules," continues Langys. Otherwise, the lawyer says, there is a risk of punishment for interpretation rather than for a factual infringement. This is a sign of an unjust state.

Where the law ends, interpretations begin

According to the lawyer, the relationship between gambling advertising and sponsorship agreements, sportswear design, the use of partners' logos and even neutral brands displayed on LED boards is currently being analysed.

"The law talks about advertising, but when the authority treats everything related to the gambling business as advertising - even the name of the partners on the T-shirt - it becomes a risk for the whole sports sector. And above all, it is a risk to legal logic," notes Langys.

Moreover, nowhere in the law is it prohibited to use the name of a gambling operator. However, due to the vagueness of the norm itself, the Authority does not invite dialogue on possible adjustments, but rather makes unilateral, often excessive interpretations based on assumptions rather than legal reasoning.

Recommendations - after the fact, responsibilities - whenever

Karolina Briliūtė, Senior Associate at AVOCAD, who works on the legal regulation of gambling, points out that the amendments to the Law on Gambling entered into force without any transitional period. According to her, the LPT did not engage in proactive and, most importantly, effective publicity measures that would have allowed companies, sports clubs or other entities to prepare for the changes, to adapt their communication, advertising or internal processes.

"Before the law came into force, there was no clear guidance on how to adjust. Now, after the fact, the authority is starting to provide guidance on what should have been done. And it is up to the authority to decide whether to punish after a week or after six months", says Briliūtė.

She also points out that the guidance on the LPT website often does not correspond to the wording of the law itself: 'one way of reading a legal provision, another way of interpreting it by the authority. This inevitably leads to litigation."

According to the lawyer, the amendments to the Gambling Act are confusing and difficult to understand even for professionals. "This is the responsibility of the legislative authorities. However, the LPT should help to interpret these norms, not interpret them in a way that suits the service itself. Today, it is reasonable to say: only the courts will give the final answers on these norms", says an AVOCAD lawyer.

Business is responsible even for what is legal

Langys points out that it is now necessary for sports clubs, event organisers, the media, advertising and media agencies to conduct an audit of all their communication tools:

  • assessing the wording of contracts with gambling businesses;
  • reviewing sponsorship strategies, especially visual communication;
  • documenting every decision to comply with the law.

"Even if you do everything right but can't justify it, it can be an infringement. And that's a no-safe zone for any business," says Langys.

Law must be predictable, not repressive

New laws create challenges, but even more so because of uncertainty and inconsistent application. When public authorities adopt a communication style similar to criminal prevention but do not provide clear guidelines, this practice undermines confidence in the law itself. "We all have one goal - a responsible and fair gambling market. But we can only achieve this through dialogue, clear rules and constructive cooperation, not through pressure and preconceptions," concludes Mr Langys.

Today's most important issue is not addressed to sports clubs or businesses. It is addressed to the regulator itself: can the LPT responsibly and clearly justify its own legal positions before making threats?

"If there is no answer to this question, it shows a regulatory problem, not a business problem. And until this problem is solved, the risk of threats will not remain on the side of business, but on the side of the system that is supposed to protect, but today inadvertently creates a climate of uncertainty," says Egidijus Langys.

Does a plane crash always exempt airlines from liability? 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Summer sees an increase in the number of flights, and with it the frustration of passengers with delayed or cancelled trips. One of the most common reasons is "unexpected plane crashes". But does this explanation really allow for the non-payment of compensation to passengers for damaged travel plans? Dainius Antanaitis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, points out that breakdowns are a normal part of air carriers' operations, so it does not mean that the company can escape liability.

According to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, a passenger may be entitled to compensation ranging from €250 to €600, depending on the distance of the flight. However, airlines often rely on a clause that allows them not to pay compensation if the flight was not operated due to "extraordinary circumstances" that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. "Just because a plane has broken down doesn't mean the airline doesn't have to compensate you. Breakdowns are a normal part of business, so not every one of them is an extraordinary circumstance," says Dainius Antanaitis.

According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a technical problem can only be considered an extraordinary circumstance if it is an unusual occurrence which the air carrier could not objectively foresee or control. If the failure is due to normal wear and tear, lack of maintenance or operation, this does not constitute grounds for refusing compensation. Even if the air carrier has complied with minimum maintenance standards, this does not mean that it has taken all necessary measures.

When is a failure considered an "extraordinary circumstance"?

Courts in both Lithuania and the EU take a realistic view of the circumstances and are critical of attempts to portray any malfunction as "exceptional". For example, in one case, a truly unexpected situation was found to be a case where the glass of an aircraft was shattered by an external impact. This is an unusual, unpredictable and objectively uncontrollable circumstance. In contrast, normal operational failures are the responsibility of air carriers.

"If the aircraft malfunction is one that is unavoidable sooner or later in the operation of the aircraft, it cannot be considered an extraordinary circumstance that eliminates the obligation to pay compensation," explains lawyer D. Antanaitis. Passengers faced with a flight delay or cancellation should not rely solely on what the airline says. They have the right to ask for an explanation, seek compensation and, in the event of a dispute, defend their rights in court.

"The most important thing is not to take the refusal to pay compensation for granted. Airlines often rely on formal explanations, but the courts look deeper into the situation," says AVOCAD's lawyer.

A breakdown is no excuse. And a passenger's right to compensation is not a favour, but a legal guarantee that should not be waived prematurely.

 

Can a standard estate agency contract become a trap for the consumer?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

The Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL) has issued a significant ruling on real estate agency contracts - unilaterally drafted brokerage contracts, which provide for obligations to pay commissions and for non-performed services, are considered unfair to consumers.

The case concerned a dispute over the amount of €1,500 claimed by a real estate agency as commission for its services, even though the property was eventually sold through the owner's own efforts and not to a buyer found by the agency. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the consumer, annulling the judgments of the first and appellate instance which had upheld the broker's claim.

This is a signal to the whole property sector

As the provision of real estate agent (broker) services is not separately regulated by Lithuanian legislation, the Supreme Court's case law is of particular importance when assessing whether the contracts concluded and services provided by brokers are in line with the legitimate interests of consumers.

According to Eimantas Čepas, attorney at AVOCAD, this case sets an important precedent, in which the court has made it clear: the usual contracts used by brokers are in a standard form and do not automatically imply that the consumer has agreed to their content knowingly or has individually discussed them in detail.

"The court in this case stated that the contract drawn up by the broker was pre-formed, template-based, and therefore subject to the criteria of protection of consumer rights and fairness, and the burden of proving that the terms and conditions were individually negotiated rests on the entrepreneur - the broker", - notes E. Čepas.

Where a fee is claimed for the mere fact of a contract

One of the key aspects of the dispute is that the broker demanded payment for services even when the actual services were not provided. The client sold the property herself and the agency did not find a buyer, but the broker argued that the sale was advertised on websites and internet sites and other means, and that therefore the costs were incurred and the broker was entitled to remuneration for the services. In this context, the agency claimed a fee of EUR 1 500 on the basis of several clauses of the contract.

LAT pasisakė aiškiai: „tikrieji Sutarties šalių ketinimai – atsakovė siekė ieškovės pagalba parduoti žemės sklypus, o ieškovė – surasti atsakovės žemės sklypų pirkėją, sudaryti su juo avansinę sutartį ir gauti už tai iš atsakovės 2000 Eur atlyginimą… <…> ieškovė atsakovės žemės sklypų pirkėjo nesurado, avansinės sutarties su pirkėju nesudarė, žemės sklypai buvo parduoti be ieškovės pagalbos, taip pat byloje nėra duomenų, kad ieškovė būtų atlikusi kokius nors veiksmus atsakovės naudai vykdydama Sutartį. Dėl nurodytų priežasčių nėra pagrindo konstatuoti, kad ieškovei priklauso atlyginimas pagal Sutarties 8 punktą…“

The Supreme Court noted that "the terms of the contract are not clear and sufficiently comprehensible, do not comply with the requirement of transparency, and are therefore unfair". In the Court's view, there is no reason to conclude that the consumer would have agreed to the condition that the broker's remuneration would be fixed, irrespective of whether the broker had fulfilled its obligations under the contract.

The onus is on the trader to prove that the contract is fair

The Court of Cassation has also clarified that service contracts cannot impose an obligation to pay merely on the basis of the fact that a contract has been concluded, as this does not impose any real responsibility on the service provider for the quality of the performance. Moreover, the agency did not impose any obligation on the basis of the contract to provide information on what it had done specifically for the consumer.

"The mere fact that a contract has been signed does not prove that the services have actually been provided, and if it has not been proven what services have been provided and what costs have been incurred, no remuneration can be claimed," stresses Eimantas Čepas.

In its ruling, the Court identified as many as five contractual provisions that are unfair to the consumer:

  • Prohibition to sell the property or change the price without the broker's knowledge.
  • Obligation to pay commission even if the broker has not fulfilled the contract and found a buyer.
  • The requirement to pay a fixed commission of €1,500 even if no services are provided.
  • Prohibiting the consumer from communicating with the buyers found by the broker.
  • Provision that the broker is not obliged to provide any information about its actions.

"This is one of the clearest signals from the Supreme Court on consumer protection: service providers cannot hide behind template contracts. If you want a reward, you have to prove that you have actually worked and provided a benefit to the client", says lawyer E. Čepas.

Recommendation to estate agencies to review contract models

According to the lawyer, this case sets an important precedent. “Consumer rights are not a formality. Even if a contract has been signed, it must be fair, clear, and reflect the actual agreement. We invite real estate agencies and brokers to assess whether the contracts they use comply with the principles of fairness, clarity, and transparency and, if necessary, to update them," summarizes Eimantas Čepas.

 

What if you find misleading information about yourself in a Google search?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Have you ever googled yourself and found unpleasant or even misleading information? Such discoveries can cause not only emotional discomfort, but also real damage to your reputation or performance. When can I request that such data be removed from search results and how can I do so? Sandra Mickienė, Senior Associate at AVOCAD, answers these questions and shares practical advice .

Primary Disseminator - the first step

It is important to understand that Google is not the entity that creates or uploads information about an individual to the internet. "As a search engine operator, Google merely indexes sources already available on the Internet and presents them to the user as search results. Therefore, if there are concerns about certain harmful information in the public domain, the first step should not be directed at Google, but at the original disseminator of the information.

Therefore, if you know of a specific natural or legal person who has published information that is untrue or defamatory, it is recommended that you first contact that person and ask them to remove the information. Such a request should be made in writing, clearly stating what information is considered to be untrue, how it violates the rights of the individual, and what action is being requested, such as immediate removal of the specific posting or a public denial of the publication.

However, it is not uncommon for the original disseminator to refuse to remove the information, or not to respond at all to a request, in the event of a belief (or a false declaration of belief) that the information he or she is disseminating is correct, or in the event of a conflicting relationship with the person about whom the information has been published.

In such cases, a person can defend his or her rights in court by suing the original disseminator for unlawful processing of personal data, violation of honour and dignity, and compensation for damages. However, in practice, such procedures take time: it can take several months or even years from the drafting of the lawsuit to a court decision. During this period, untrue information made publicly available on the internet can cause real and lasting damage by interfering with a person's professional, social or personal life.

Therefore, in order to mitigate the negative effects of such information as soon as possible, it is recommended that you do not delay, and that you contact Google to request the removal of the search results associated with such defamatory and untrue information, either in parallel or immediately after receiving a negative response (or no response) from the original disseminator of the information.

Application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to search engine operators

The GDPR establishes that it applies not only to controllers established in the EU, but also to companies that offer services to data subjects in the Union or monitor the behaviour of individuals in the EU, regardless of where they are established. Thus, although Google is established outside the EU, it is active in all EU Member States, provides search services in individual national markets (e.g. via google.com, google.de, etc.) and processes data of EU residents, and is therefore directly subject to the GDPR.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified in its case law that search engine operators such as Google are considered to be controllers of personal data under the GDPR when they index, store and make available personal data in the form of search results. This activity - i.e. obtaining information from third-party websites, organising it and presenting it in a structured way according to specific keywords (e.g. a person's name) - constitutes the processing of personal data, notwithstanding the fact that the information itself has been made publicly available by a third party. Moreover, even the mere display of a person's name or picture in search results already constitutes processing of personal data.

Therefore, Google, as data controller, is obliged to ensure the rights of data subjects, including the right to be forgotten, i.e. the right to require search engines to remove links to third-party websites that contain information relating to a specific individual. This obligation arises if (i) the person making the request is located in the EU (the GDPR applies to the processing of data of persons located in EU Member States) and (ii) one of the legal grounds for requesting erasure under Article 17 of the GDPR is present, for example:

  • when the data are no longer necessary for the purpose for which they were collected;
  • where the person withdraws the consent on which the processing was based;
  • where the processing was unlawful;
  • where the data must be erased in accordance with legal requirements.

The CJEU has also clarified that the inclusion of information in search results under a person's name significantly increases its accessibility, which can have a much greater impact on a person's right to privacy than the mere posting of the information itself on the original website. Therefore, where there is a legal basis for requesting the removal of information, search engine operators are obliged to delete links to the relevant pages, even if:

  • that information is still available in the original source,
  • its publication in that source is lawful.

This clarification strengthens the ability of data subjects to control the dissemination of their personal data on the internet and obliges search engine operators such as Google to implement the GDPR requirements responsibly in practice.

Practical tips: what is important to know when considering submitting an erasure request to Google

According to the case law of the CJEU, it is a fundamental principle that the right to privacy and the protection of personal data generally prevails over the commercial interests of the search engine operator or the public's interest to know and obtain information.

However, the right to the protection of personal data is not absolute - if the person is a public figure (e.g. a politician), or the information makes a significant contribution to the public interest or to the democratic debate, or if the information discloses alleged criminal offences or other improper/unlawful conduct, then public interest and the public's right to know may also take precedence over the protection of personal data in such cases. The balance between the individual's right to privacy, data protection and the public's right to be informed would thus be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It would also look at the nature of the information, its relevance, the prominence of the person, the context, the veracity of the information and the manner in which the information was obtained and disseminated.

In practice, we have found that Google often refuses requests to delete information relating to an individual on the grounds of public interest and the public's right to know. For example, when a person requests the removal from search results of links to information that links him or her to an alleged offence, Google often refuses to do so on the grounds that (i) the public has an interest in knowing the information, and (ii) the requester would have to prove that the sentence has been served, the conviction is spent or the like in order to have the information removed.

In this respect, it is important to note that such behaviour by Google is not in line with the case law of the CJEU. Although, in fact, a mere reference to the right to be forgotten is not in itself sufficient - the CJEU has clarified that a person requesting the deletion of information must provide certain evidence to substantiate the false, untrue nature of the information. However, the CJEU has also underlined another very important rule: this burden of proof must not be disproportionate or impossible to meet. The data subject cannot be required to produce a court judgment against the original disseminator or other evidence to prove that the person never committed the acts published in the online links whose removal is requested.

On the contrary, a person may only be subject to requirements that are reasonable in the light of the circumstances of the particular situation. As the CJEU has pointed out, placing an excessive burden of proof on the individual would not only be contrary to the principle of proportionality, but would also, in practice, undermine the exercise of the right to be forgotten.

Google is therefore not entitled to unreasonably burden a person's right to erasure by requiring evidence that the person is not objectively able to provide. Such a requirement violates the principle of proportionality and restricts the effective exercise of this right.

Another important and related aspect is that if the information disseminated about a person is inaccurate or at least partially misleading, the individual's rights to privacy and data protection must be given priority, even if the information relates to a topic of public interest or to a public figure. The CJEU has noted that, even where the data subject plays an important role in public life, the right to freedom of expression and information cannot extend to the right to disseminate or have access to inaccurate information. Therefore, if it is established that at least part of the information contained in the removal request is inaccurate and not of a minor nature, Google must delete the inaccurate, misleading or defamatory data from the search results.

Where and how to apply to Google

If a person decides to exercise the right to be forgotten, he or she must fill in a special Google form available online. When filling in this form, it is necessary to indicate:

  • name and surname;
  • the specific search queries (for example, a person's name) that produce the disputed results;
  • each link (URL) that is requested to be removed from the search results;
  • an explanation of why the information should be removed (e.g. misleading, untrue, defamatory, etc.);
  • additional documents or information in support of the request (if available);
  • proof of identity (e.g. a copy of your ID card or passport).

What to do if Google rejects your request

If a request to remove information is refused, the person may:

  1. contact a national data protection authority, such as the State Data Protection Inspectorate in Lithuania, which may issue a decision and order Google to remove the data if it finds that the individual's rights have been infringed.
  2. defend your rights in court, based on the GDPR and CJEU case law.

In summary, the right to be forgotten is an important personal data protection tool to protect one's reputation and private life against the dissemination of misleading, offensive or outdated information on the internet. While the practical implementation of this right still poses challenges - from the burden of proof to the refusal of requests by search engine operators - the CJEU's jurisprudence clearly defines the limits and helps to strike a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know.

The key is not to delay, to act systematically and to follow the law and the CJEU's interpretations. And if you are faced with a difficult situation or a refusal to delete your data, it's a good idea to contact lawyers who can help you to prepare a well-founded and evidence-based request or defend your rights in court.

Equal work - different pay: is it always discrimination?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

When two people in a company do the same job but are paid differently, the natural question is: is this legal? Is this situation already discrimination? Or does the employer have a legitimate reason for treating them differently?

Viktorija Dubovskienė, an attorney at AVOCAD, answers these topical employment issues by analysing both national labour law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the senior lawyer, the Labour Code (LC) stipulates that employers must ensure gender equality and not discriminate against employees on any grounds. The Court of Cassation has also clarified that any discrimination, whether direct or indirect, on grounds unrelated to the employee's abilities or statutory criteria, such as membership of a particular organisation, is prohibited.

The Labour Code stipulates that a worker's salary cannot be lower than what is laid down by law, collective agreements or the company's remuneration system. It also makes it clear that the system must be fair and ensure that workers are not discriminated against on grounds of sex or other grounds. Same work means the performance of work activities that are, according to objective criteria, identical or similar to other work activities, to the extent that the two can be interchanged without significant cost to the employer.

A systematic interpretation of the above-mentioned provisions of the LC means that the parties to an employment contract must lay down in the employment contract non-discriminatory rules for calculating wages, which establish equal pay for equal work.

However, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows that not all unequal treatment is discrimination. It is only recognised when there is no objective and reasonable explanation for such treatment. If an employee raises a reasonable suspicion of possible discrimination, then the burden of proving that the difference was legitimate lies with the employer, who has access to all the relevant data.

Viktorija Dubovskienė points out that the Supreme Court of Lithuania has examined the employee's complaint in this situation. It stated that the employee had been subject to unequal pay conditions for a certain period of time after the reorganisation, but that this temporary difference in remuneration was objectively justified - it was part of the reorganisation process in order to unify the pay system throughout the employer's company during the transitional period.

"In this case, workers were temporarily treated differently for the good cause of improving their situation. The public authorities decided to apply a transitional period during which salaries were equalised and increased", explains the lawyer.

To achieve this, interim compensatory measures (salary supplements) were applied and the system itself was converged faster than planned, i.e. within 7 months instead of 2 years.

The Court of Cassation noted that the temporary unequal pay was known in advance, the employee had been informed of it, had consented to it, and the differences were not discriminatory. The Court of Cassation emphasised that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, where the aim is to improve the situation of all workers and the implementation of the restrictions is not contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights, such restrictions are acceptable.

Thus, according to the lawyer, it is not enough in each case to conclude on the face of it that a provision is discriminatory, but the context of all the circumstances and the ultimate true objectives of the action must be assessed.

 

When a farm is not a UAB: The court has drawn the boundaries of who owns the money

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Can a farmer use the farm's money as he or she sees fit? Is he subject to the same requirements as a company manager - first pay taxes, pay debts, then "you"? Karolina Laura Briliūtė, Senior Associate at AVOCAD, answers these questions by commenting on the recent case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. According to her, the Court's decision is particularly important for those who own, transfer or intend to acquire a farm.

Farmer - not a legal person

Although a farm is often seen as a "business unit", it is not a legal entity and cannot be considered as a separate entity. The Court emphasised in its ruling that a farm is not a limited liability company, even if it has a structure, assets and even employees. Legally, everything is managed by the farmer as a natural person. "This is a crucial point of reference: in the absence of separate personality, there is no obligation for the farmer to behave as the managing body of a legal person," notes Karolina Laura Briliūtė.

The Supreme Court noted that neither the Civil Code nor the Farmer's Farm Law creates a separate category of ownership of "farm property". Accounting is designed to record financial flows, but it does not create or limit ownership. Even if the funds are referred to in the accounts as 'farm money', they remain the personal property of the farmer.

According to AVOCAD's lawyer, the Court of Justice took a hard look at the Court of Appeal's attempt to apply business law analogies. The attempt to treat the farmer as the manager of the company, who only disposes of the funds after the "profit balance" is left, was found to be inappropriate and dangerous to the precedent. A farmer's activity is not a collective activity, but an individual activity under the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA), where all the assets generated belong to the person running the activity. The purpose of the funds - payment of taxes, fulfilment of obligations - is important, but it does not restrict the owner's right to use the property, unless otherwise stipulated in the contract.

Taxes: an obligation on the state, not on the other party to the contract

The Supreme Court has also given a detailed assessment on taxes. Although a farmer is subject to VAT and GPT on the income he receives, this does not mean that he is not entitled to use the money until he has paid these taxes. These are two separate lines of liability: one against the State (tax liability) and the other against the contractor (contractual liability). The applicant could not rely on tax arguments to recover the funds as 'misappropriated'.

The Court's position is clear: the farmer may dispose of all the funds in the farm account as his own property, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. Unless the parties have agreed that the funds are to be used for certain payments prior to the transfer, there is no reason to believe that the farmer was obliged not to use them.

According to the lawyer, this Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that a farmer's activity, although governed by accounting rules, loses any legal personality when it comes to property rights:

  • If you want to use certain farm funds specifically (e.g. to pay debts or taxes), agree this clearly and in writing - only a written agreement creates obligations on the part of the farmer in favour of the partner.
  • Don't overestimate accounting terms such as "farm money" or "farm account" - these are used in accounting but do not give money a separate legal status.
  • Tax law (VAT, GPT) cannot be invoked to restrict the farmer's right to dispose of his money - taxes must be paid, but the obligation to do so lies with the farmer in his relationship with the State and not with the other party to the contract.
  • A farmer is not a director of a company, so the business law analogy of holding funds "outside" his control until taxes have been paid and debts settled does not apply. When a farm is transferred, the exact use of the assets, debts and money must be defined in advance - otherwise the court will consider that the farmer was free to use the money as he saw fit.

 

Can a shareholder be convicted of credit fraud?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

With the information in the public domain that law enforcement authorities have opened a pre-trial investigation into suspected credit fraud in a company owned by the Prime Minister, questions arise as to what the allegations mean, who can be prosecuted, and whether only the head of the company is liable, or whether the shareholder is also liable.

There are a number of cases of farmers and entrepreneurs who have been tried for fraudulently obtaining loans or aid, so this case is neither new nor exceptional.

What constitutes credit fraud?

According to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, credit fraud is a situation where a loan, aid, subsidy or grant is obtained by fraud. Such acts are qualified as a criminal offence under Article 207 of the CC.

Fraud usually involves misrepresentation, including information about the borrower's financial situation. However, such information is only considered fraudulent if it was decisive for the creditor's decision to grant financing.

The objective part of Article 207 of the Criminal Code is that the perpetrator obtains a loan or credit by deceiving the victim. The person must be aware that he or she is acting fraudulently and is seeking a pecuniary advantage or knowingly allowing damage to occur. It should be noted that the fact that a loan has been illegally obtained, irrespective of how it has been used, is sufficient for criminal liability.

For example, if a person knows that his or her existing company does not qualify for soft loans, but sets up a new company, obtains a loan and uses the funds to operate the old company, this could amount to credit fraud.

Setting up companies or selling assets is not prohibited. However, if such transactions are carried out with the criminal intent of obtaining financing by deception, they may be considered a crime.

Who can be prosecuted?

As a rule, specific natural persons acting on behalf of a legal person are prosecuted. This can include:

CEO - if he or she decided to apply for a loan and then used the funds for the benefit of another company;

  • Company staff responsible for drafting or signing documents;
  • Shareholders - if they gave instructions to carry out unlawful acts or took other decisions related to the offence.

Can a shareholder be convicted?

Being a shareholder in a company that has received credit does not automatically mean that you will be prosecuted. However, if it is established that the shareholder not only invested, but also effectively controlled the company, exercised shareholder rights, gave instructions or encouraged fraudulent conduct, he or she may be liable.

Evidence of shareholder-manager communication, shareholder decisions and shareholder knowledge of activities is crucial in such investigations. It also assesses whether the manager was not merely a formal figure (a figurehead).

A shareholder can only be prosecuted if his role goes beyond that of a passive shareholder to active participation in the illegal activity - especially if he acts as a de facto manager.

What are the possible consequences?

In addition to personal criminal liability (fines, imprisonment or restriction of liberty), the company itself can also be sentenced. It can be fined, restricted or even wound up. It may also be liable to claim damages.

Egidijus Kieras, Attorney at Law, AVOCAD

How can I recover my debt without a lengthy litigation process?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

In life, it is often the case that a debtor refuses to repay a debt for a variety of reasons and does not respond to your calls to fulfil his/her obligation. In such cases, going to court may seem like the only option, but litigation is often lengthy and expensive. The Civil Procedure Code introduces the institution of a court order to ensure a faster and simpler way of collecting debts. Rokas Puodžiūnas, a lawyer at AVOCAD, talks about its objectives and advantages .

What is the characteristic of the process of issuing a court order? Here, a uniform form of application is submitted. No evidence is attached to the application. These cases are dealt with by the district courts. The stamp duty is a quarter of the application fee, but not less than €10. There is no pre-litigation stage.

A court order is a procedural document issued by a court to a creditor. If the debtor does not object to the order or does not pay the debt within 20 days of service of the order, the order enters into force and becomes an enforceable document that can be submitted to a bailiff. It should be noted that a court order can only be issued in respect of pecuniary claims, irrespective of the grounds on which they arise.

How do I apply for an injunction? A person seeking a court order must file an application. Its content is set out in Article 433 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it is most convenient to use the standard form approved by the Minister of Justice, which can be submitted to the court of the debtor's place of residence both on paper and electronically.

When can the application be heard? The necessary conditions are that the creditor has fulfilled its obligations (in the case of a bilateral obligation), that a part of the obligation is claimed (in the case of a split obligation), and that the debtor is resident or has its registered office in Lithuania. The court order cannot be issued if the claim arises from a consumer credit agreement with an annual percentage rate of charge that does not comply with the statutory requirements, and if the interest requested exceeds the statutory maximum rate of interest for late payment (under the Commercial Contracts Act).

Is it necessary to provide evidence? Formally, no. The creditor is not obliged to substantiate the claim with evidence, and the court does not check its validity. However, the court will refuse to accept a manifestly unfounded claim. It is therefore advisable to enclose at least basic documents supporting the monetary claim with the application.

The procedure is as follows: the court will first issue the injunction no later than the next working day after the application is accepted. Copies of the creditor's application and the court order are sent to the debtor. The debtor has 20 days to either: pay the debt and inform the court, or object (without giving reasons). If no objections are lodged, the order becomes final and is forwarded to the bailiff for execution. If the debtor objects, the creditor has 14 days to bring an action under the general rules and to pay the missing stamp duty.

The biggest risk in initiating proceedings for the issuance of an injunction is that the debtor, even if he knows that the debt claimed from him is justified, may deliberately raise objections before the court, thus starting a lengthy litigation process. Therefore, it is advisable to restrict the application for an injunction to 'clear' monetary claims, i.e. disputes where it is unlikely that the debtor has evidence to counter the claim for payment. If you are in doubt about whether it is worth applying to court for an injunction in your situation, rather than going straight to court, it is advisable to seek legal advice.