Month: January 2026

The participation of the victim in administrative proceedings is a prerequisite for a fair decision. 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

There are things that should be as well known in law as two plus two is in mathematics. One of them is the participation of the victim in administrative proceedings – a necessary condition for a fair decision. In cases of administrative offenses, it is not enough to formally recognize the rights of the victim—they must be effectively enforced. The mere fact that a person is designated as a victim does not mean that they had a real opportunity to exercise their procedural rights. According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer with the AVOCAD professional association of lawyers, court practice clearly states that if the victim does not have a real opportunity to participate in the proceedings, such a case cannot be considered lawful.

This position is consistently supported not only by the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses, but also by the interpretations of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. According to the lawyer, it is first necessary to understand the concept of a victim in administrative proceedings. The Code of Administrative Offenses establishes that a victim in an administrative offense case is a natural person who has suffered physical, material, or non-material damage as a result of an administrative offense, or a legal person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an administrative offense. It should be noted that such a person who has suffered damage acquires the status of a victim during the investigation or examination of an administrative offence, i.e. is recognised as a victim by a protocol or decision of the authority investigating and examining the administrative offence, or by a court ruling.

According to Domantas Velykis, the aforementioned code establishes a very important list of victims' rights in the proceedings, which includes, among other things, the right to participate in the oral proceedings and give evidence, submit documents and items relevant to the case, to file motions and challenges, to appeal procedural decisions in accordance with the established procedure, etc.

It is on the basis of these rights that very important obligations of the court are enshrined in legal regulations. The practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania has clarified that these norms oblige the court to inform the victim of the time and place of the hearing, as well as of the procedural decision taken, thus ensuring the victim's right to participate in the oral proceedings and to give evidence, to appeal against the decision taken in accordance with the established procedure, and to exercise other rights.

According to an AVOCAD lawyer, the European Court of Human Rights has also ruled on these obligations. Its established practice consistently emphasizes the principle of equality of the parties to the proceedings, which is an integral part of the broader concept of fair trial. This principle requires that each party should have an accessible and real opportunity to present its case in such a way that it is not placed at a significant disadvantage compared to its opponent. The principle of equality of the parties would be meaningless if one of the parties were not informed of the court hearing in such a way as to enable it to participate in the hearing and exercise its rights under national law, while the other party effectively exercises those rights.

Summarizing these legal provisions and court practice, lawyer Domantas Velykis reminds us that a necessary condition for examining an administrative offense case is the participation of the victim (if there is one in the case) in the court hearing, or at least that person's knowledge of the time and place of the court hearing.

"If the court violates these obligations and fails to notify the victim about the hearing of the case, i.e., if the case is heard without the victim's participation because he or she was not properly informed about the time and place of the hearing, there are significant legal consequences, which are clearly stated in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania," notes the AVOCAD lawyer.

As an example, he cites a case in which a car driver who violated a "give way" road sign collided with a cyclist and caused minor injuries. The administrative offense investigation authority ruled that the cyclist was the victim, but the district court, when examining the driver's appeal, did not inform the victim about the hearing and examined the case without him being present. The Supreme Court found a fundamental violation of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which restricted the victim's right to be heard, and overturned the district court's decision, referring the case back for retrial.

A similar position was taken in another case where a driver hit a pedestrian and fled the scene of the accident. Although the pedestrian was recognized as the victim, the district court did not inform him of the hearing and terminated the administrative proceedings. In this case, the Supreme Court of Lithuania also found that the proper court proceedings had not been ensured, the victim's rights had been restricted, and the decision was unlawful, and therefore the case was remanded for retrial.

Thus, according to AVOCAD's lawyer, this practice clearly shows that in cases of administrative offenses, it is not enough to formally recognize a person as a victim. What is essential is the real opportunity to participate in the process, to be informed, to be heard, and to exercise the rights granted by law. Otherwise, the court decision risks being overturned as having been made in violation of fundamental principles of due process.

Terminated the preliminary contract and sold at a higher price? The court ruled that penalties alone are not sufficient. 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Let's imagine a situation that is very common in today's real estate market. A buyer finds a home, agrees on a price, signs a preliminary purchase agreement, pays a deposit, and waits for the documents for the main contract to be prepared. The parties communicate, agree on terms, sometimes even extend agreements or make additional payments. However, the market changes—prices rise, another buyer appears who is willing to pay more. Then one party terminates the pre-contractual relationship, returns the advance payment, pays the contractual penalties, and considers the matter resolved. But is it really?

This seemingly mundane situation was recently assessed in detail by the Supreme Court of Lithuania, which clearly stated that once pre-contractual relations have been terminated, the issue of compensation for losses cannot be resolved formally. It must be assessed according to specific and clear criteria, and the mere payment of penalties does not necessarily mean the end of liability.

Viktorija Dubovskienė, a lawyer at the AVOCAD law firm, notes that this ruling is significant in that the court very clearly distinguished between two situations – when the termination of pre-contractual relations only has contractual consequences and when it results in an obligation to compensate for additional losses.

"The LAT essentially said that the termination of pre-contractual relations does not in itself mean an automatic right to compensation for any losses. However, if the termination is unfair and the other party suffers real losses as a result, they must be compensated," says the lawyer.

In the case under consideration, the court assessed a situation where the seller, having concluded a preliminary contract for the sale of property for EUR 124,000, failed to perform it and subsequently sold the same property to a third party for EUR 190,000. The key issue was not the fact of the termination of the agreement itself, but why it happened and what consequences it had for the other party. The Supreme Court of Lithuania found that the main contract was not concluded due to objective obstacles, but because of the seller's decision to take advantage of the changed market situation and obtain greater economic benefits.

"The criteria highlighted by the court are particularly important in this case: whether the party acted in good faith, whether the pre-contractual relationship actually continued, whether the other party had a reasonable expectation of concluding the main contract, and whether it suffered actual losses as a result of the termination," emphasizes Viktorija Dubovskienė.

The Supreme Court also clearly stated its position on the nature of the losses. Acting in good faith and having a valid agreement, the buyer had a real opportunity to purchase the property at the agreed price. Upon termination of the preliminary agreement and increase in market prices, he lost this opportunity. The court recognized that this loss was not hypothetical—it was a real pre-contractual loss that had to be compensated if it was a direct consequence of unfair conduct.

"This ruling is also important because it clearly shows that losses in pre-contractual relations are not assessed automatically, but rather through the criteria of causality, good faith, and actual consequences. If one party terminates the agreement solely in order to obtain a higher price, and the other party objectively loses the opportunity to acquire the property as a result, such benefit may become compensable damages," emphasizes the AVOCAD lawyer.

This ruling by the Supreme Court of Lithuania sends a clear signal to the market that preliminary agreements are not "temporary" or "without consequences." They create legitimate expectations, and their termination must be considered responsibly. Price changes or more favorable market conditions do not in themselves justify unilateral withdrawal from the agreement, and the issue of compensation for losses will be decided not formally, but according to the actual behavior of the parties and the consequences thereof.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania has clarified that termination of a service contract in an administrative building is not a decision of a single owner. 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

When a business operating in an administrative building wants to terminate a contract for the maintenance of common areas, it often seems that one decision is enough – the contract is open-ended, notice of termination has been given, and an alternative service provider has already been selected. However, in practice, such a decision often comes up against the will of other owners of premises in the building: services are provided for the entire building, common property is indivisible, and there is no joint decision. It was precisely this situation that the Supreme Court of Lithuania assessed and concluded that the right to terminate such a contract is not absolute.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the SC) issued a new important ruling in a civil case and stated that a co-owner of an administrative building does not have the right to unilaterally terminate a contract for the maintenance of common use objects without the unanimous decision of all co-owners.

According to Mantas Baigys, a lawyer from the AVOCAD law firm representing the party in the case, this decision highlights a very important rule: the right to terminate a service contract is not absolute in all cases, especially when the contract relates to the maintenance of common property and affects the interests of all co-owners.

"The newly formulated rule of the Supreme Court shows that a person's right to terminate a service contract cannot be exercised under any circumstances," says lawyer M. Baigys.

The case dealt with whether the owner of premises in an administrative building could unilaterally terminate individually concluded open-ended maintenance service contracts if there was no joint decision by all owners (co-owners) of the premises to change the administrator and terminate the contractual relationship.

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts and emphasized that in relationships of this nature, the specifics of joint partial ownership and the decision-making procedure of co-owners in administrative buildings are of decisive importance. The ruling highlights several important points:

  • In administrative buildings (where most of the space is non-residential), decisions on the management of common property are essentially linked to the agreement between the co-owners.
  • Although the Civil Code allows for the termination of an indefinite contract, this rule must be applied after assessing whether the law or contract imposes any restrictions. The Supreme Court emphasized that restrictions in the administration and supervision of joint property are determined precisely by the co-owners acting "as a single owner" in relations with third parties.
  • When the subject matter of the contract covers the maintenance of all common areas (rather than a separate part thereof) and all co-owners have concluded a similar contract, such agreements may be regarded, in terms of their content, as a single joint agreement, which may only be amended or terminated by a joint decision.

According to AVOCAD lawyer Kamilė Šemeklytė, who represented one of the parties in the lower courts in this case, this court ruling is particularly important for owners and administrators of commercial and administrative buildings. This is especially true when some owners want to change service providers but there is no consensus, when services are actually provided to the entire building, so "disconnection" may have consequences for others; when questions arise as to whether a unilateral notice is sufficient to terminate the contract.

"The Lithuanian Supreme Court's ruling in this situation is focused on balancing interests and ensuring the continuity of joint property management until the co-owners reach a joint decision or establish rules for use," the lawyer emphasises in her commentary on the ruling. This decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania is final and not subject to appeal.

Lithuanian lawyer to head international CICERO lawyers' league

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Attorney Jonas Zaronskis, founder and partner of the AVOCAD law firm, has been serving as presidentof the Cicero League of International Lawyers since the beginning of this year. This is a significant international recognition for both the attorney himself and the Lithuanian legal community.

AVOCAD became a member of this international organization back in 2014. From the very beginning of his membership, J. Zaronskis' involvement in the organization's activities has been consistent, active, and purposeful, going well beyond the limits of formal participation. Over the course of nearly a decade, he has contributed significantly to the growth of the league, the strengthening of relationships between members, joint professional initiatives, and the creation of an international community culture. In 2023, J. Zaronskis was elected to the CICERO board, where he continues to work and will continue in his new position as president.

One of the most important stages in the relationship between AVOCAD and CICERO was the selection process to become the sole representatives of Lithuania in the league. This process was distinguished by exceptionally high quality standards: the firm's activities were personally evaluated during a two-day audit by the then CICERO president Peter Munday, who observed internal work processes, team performance, and the quality of legal services provided. This experience clearly confirmed that quality is not just a declarative value in the CICERO league – it is a standard applied in everyday activities.

Today, this organization brings together more than 45 internationally recognized independent law firms, and its community of members is based on trust, professionalism, and personal connections. J. Zaronskis knows many of the league's members not only professionally, but also personally, which ensures fast, direct, and extremely high-quality legal assistance to clients around the world.

As president of CICERO, Jonas Zaronskis is responsible for the strategic direction of the league, coordinating the work of the board, strengthening cooperation among members, overseeing the selection process for new members, ensuring the highest professional and ethical standards, and representing the league in international professional forums. The president also plays an important role in strengthening the organization's visibility, reputation, and long-term value for its members.

“Being the sole representatives of CICERO in Lithuania and, after almost 10 years of membership and strong, consistently nurtured relations, accepting the position of president is a great honor and responsibility not only for me, but for our entire team,” notes the lawyer.

This appointment marks an important milestone not only in J. Zaronskis' professional career, but also in the development of AVOCAD as a whole. It reaffirms AVOCAD's consistent commitment to building sustainable international relationships, operating in the global legal market, and adhering to the highest professional standards.

The Cicero League of International Lawyers was established in 2013 in the United Kingdom as a network of independent international law firms, aiming to bring together high-quality legal service providers and promote their cooperation around the world.

 

Who is responsible for snow removal in apartment buildings?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

With the weather turning colder in Lithuania, the long-awaited snow has finally returned. Unfortunately, along with the opportunity to enjoy winter scenes outside the window, large amounts of snow also cause practical problems – from clearing snow from the roofs of houses to slippery sidewalks and courtyards. The question of who is responsible for clearing snow from apartment buildings and who is liable for any incidents that may occur is becoming particularly relevant.

Rokas Puodžiūnas, a lawyer at the AVOCAD professional association of lawyers , comments on such situations , pointing out that responsibility for snow removal and territory maintenance arises not "from habit" but directly from legislation.

The Civil Code stipulates that owners (users) of apartments and other premises must manage, properly maintain, repair, or otherwise take care of common use objects. This means that apartment owners are only responsible for those objects that belong to them under common partial ownership.

In this case, apartment owners are responsible for taking care of the land plot that is assigned to the multi-apartment residential building in accordance with the procedure established by law, i.e., when the land plot is formed and transferred to the owners of the building for management.

To manage the common areas of an apartment building, the owners of apartments and other premises establish an association, enter into a joint activity agreement, or select an administrator for the common areas. However, as the lawyer points out, regardless of the form of management chosen, the obligation to take care of and maintain the allocated land plot, including snow removal, remains:

  • The chairperson of the community is responsible for the use and management of the common land plot in accordance with the requirements of laws and other legal acts.
  • the administrator of common use objects, in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the use and maintenance of buildings, their engineering systems, and potentially dangerous equipment, maintenance of land plots, organizes technical maintenance of the building, maintenance of land plots used and managed by the owners of premises on the basis of common partial ownership or other grounds established by law;
  • The joint activity agreement aims to establish the common rights, obligations, and interests of the owners of premises in a multi-apartment building in relation to the management, use, and maintenance of the building's common areas and the land plot assigned to the building in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Therefore, the fundamental rule is as follows: the owner of the land plot is responsible for keeping the courtyard of an apartment building clean and tidy. Accordingly, the manager of the common areas of the apartment building (the community, owners operating under a joint activity agreement, or the administrator) is only responsible for the land plot that has been assigned to them and transferred to their management. This obligation is established not only by the Civil Code, but also by subordinate legislation. If the land plot is not assigned to the apartment building or has not been transferred to the apartment owners for management, the municipality is responsible for its maintenance. In such a case, it is the municipality that is responsible for organizing snow removal, reducing slipperiness, and other maintenance work in the area.

When it comes to the maintenance of apartment building roofs, the situation is even clearer. If snow accumulates on the roof or icicles form that could pose a threat to the health or property of passers-by, the building owner or owners are responsible for taking care of this. This is considered one of the essential duties for the safe operation of a building.

Building maintenance requirements are detailed in the technical construction regulation STR 1.07.03:2017 and other legal acts. For example, this regulation clearly states that snow and ice must not accumulate on the walls, skylights, windows, and other vertical surfaces of buildings. If snow or ice does accumulate, it must be removed from the surface of the building at a distance of at least 2 meters.

In addition, the regulation requires the periodic removal of snow, water, dust, and other debris accumulated on the building and its structures. It also establishes an obligation to regularly clean dust, grease, and other contaminants from heating, ventilation, water supply, sewage, and other engineering systems and equipment in order to ensure the safe and proper operation of the building. Failure to maintain the roof during the winter period and ensure a safe environment may result in civil liability if damage is caused to another person or property as a result.

The Civil Code stipulates that damage caused by defects or collapse of buildings, structures, or other constructions must be compensated by the owner or manager of these objects, unless it is proven that the damage was caused by force majeure or the victim's own intent or gross negligence. The manager is considered to be the person who has the object in their possession and who is entrusted with its operation, maintenance, or management, regardless of whether they are formally considered the owner.

Case law consistently confirms that one of the essential objectives of building maintenance is the obligation to ensure that snow and ice do not accumulate on the walls, windows, skylights, and other vertical surfaces of buildings, and that any accumulation is removed in a timely manner to avoid danger to people and property. In its systematic assessment of the applicable legal regulations, the court recognized that the administration of a residential building includes not only the removal of icicles, but also the removal of snow from the roof, even if this obligation is not directly specified in separate provisions, as it arises from the general obligation to ensure the safe use of the building and its structures, and therefore the building administrator is considered to be the manager of the residential building.

In this particular case, it was established that the administrator had failed to properly perform his administrative duties, had not ensured the safe use of the common structures of the apartment building, and had not cleared snow and ice in a timely manner. As a result, snow and ice falling from the roof of the building damaged the resident's car. Since all elements of civil liability were proven and the defendant failed to prove circumstances that would exempt him from liability, the court awarded damages to the victim. It should be noted that the car was parked in a prohibited or obviously dangerous place, and the amount of damage was not disputed in the case. For these reasons, the decision on compensation for damages was considered justified.

Therefore, residents should contact the entity responsible for the maintenance of specific objects in cases of unplowed roads or unbroken icicles. The municipality is responsible for the courtyards of apartment buildings where no land plots have been formed and their management has not been transferred to the owners of the apartment building. If a land plot has been formed and transferred to the management of the building owners, it must be maintained by the entity through which the apartment owners exercise their rights – the building community, the owners operating under a joint activity agreement, or the building administrator. In all cases, the building owner should be contacted regarding the maintenance of the building's roofs.

 

Business with friends: invisible risks that cost friendships

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Starting a business with friends or close associates often seems like a natural and safe choice. There is trust, shared enthusiasm, belief in the idea, and a feeling that "we will work everything out among ourselves." However, according to lawyers, this is where one of the biggest risks lies—the lack of formal agreements. Practice shows that when starting a business without clearly defined rules, friendships often do not withstand the realities of business.

The first serious challenges usually arise not immediately, but when the company begins to grow, when income is generated and it is time to calculate the results for the year. Then, naturally, questions arise: who contributed how much, whose contribution was greater—capital, ideas, connections, or daily work. What seemed self-evident at the beginning turns into disputes over workload, responsibility, and the fair distribution of profits. And when these issues are not discussed in advance, emotions take over.

Eimantas Čepas, a lawyer at the AVOCAD law firm, discusses why a shareholder agreement is necessary even when you are setting up a business with your closest friends and family.

A shareholders' agreement is a private agreement between the shareholders of a company that supplements the company's articles of association but is not publicly registered. Unlike the articles of association, it focuses not on the formal structure of the company but on the actual relationships between the partners and day-to-day decisions.

"A shareholders' agreement allows for more flexible regulation of relations between shareholders – determining how decisions are made, how profits are distributed, and what the conditions are for withdrawal or transfer of shares. It helps to avoid situations where decisions have to be made spontaneously or on the basis of emotions," explains E. Čepas.

Emotions are often the main catalyst for conflict. When there is no clear agreement on who is responsible for what and how each person's contribution is evaluated, even a successful business can become a field of disagreement. From a legal point of view, a shareholders' agreement is a civil contract with all the consequences of a normal contract, so its provisions are binding on all parties to the agreement.

"The shareholders' agreement acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the business partnership is managed transparently and that disputes are resolved according to predefined rules," emphasizes the lawyer.

It is important to understand that such an agreement is not only relevant for large companies. On the contrary, it is often even more important for small and growing businesses. When a business is created by friends, colleagues, or family members, trust often replaces formal agreements, but as the company grows, this becomes a weak link.

"Even in a small company, disagreements about money, decisions, or workload can become a serious source of conflict. A legal document helps to separate personal and business relationships, maintaining a clear line of responsibility," says E. Čepas.

A well-drafted shareholders' agreement covers decision-making procedures, profit distribution principles, conditions for transfer of shares and withdrawal, non-competition and confidentiality obligations, as well as dispute resolution mechanisms. If these issues are not addressed, disputes later become more complex, longer, and more expensive.

It is also important that shareholder agreements have full legal force. Although they are not registered in public registers, courts consider them to be valid and enforceable agreements between shareholders, provided that they do not violate mandatory legal provisions.

"This is one of those cases where good legal form means real content and legal certainty," emphasizes the lawyer.

The most common mistake in practice is not concluding a shareholders' agreement at all or concluding it too late, when the conflict has already begun. Another mistake is to rely on abstract, universal templates that do not reflect real relationships and the specific activities of the company.

"It is often believed that an agreement is unnecessary if the shareholders are friends or family members. In practice, however, it is precisely these relationships that most often turn into the most complex disputes," notes AVOCAD attorney Eimantas Čepas.

A shareholder agreement is not a sign of mistrust. It is proof of a mature partnership and an investment in long-term stability. According to the lawyer, it is better to agree clearly today than to argue in court tomorrow. "Clear rules help protect not only the business, but also what is often most important – the human relationships that started it all," notes Eimantas Čepas.