Laurynas Staniulis: uždrausti gyventi loftuose – ką toks sprendimas duotų NT rinkai?

Aplinkos ministerijos parengtas Statinio (jo patalpų) naudojimo ne pagal paskirtį tvarkos aprašo projektas iš pirmo žvilgsnio sprendžia gana aiškią problemą: jeigu patalpa nėra gyvenamosios paskirties, joje neturėtų būti gyvenama. Tačiau NT rinkoje paprastos teisinės taisyklės kartais sukelia labai nepaprastų pasekmių.Pagal siūlomą reguliavimą gyvenimas negyvenamosios paskirties patalpose nebebūtų viena iš leidžiamų jų naudojimo ne pagal paskirtį išimčių. Naująją tvarką numatoma taikyti nuo 2026 m. lapkričio 1 d., kartu paliekant pereinamąją nuostatą: iki 2026 m. spalio 31 d. pradėtam statinio ar patalpų naudojimui ne pagal paskirtį būtų taikoma iki tol galiojusi tvarka.

Atrodytų, kompromisas rastas – naujiems atvejams nustatome griežtesnes taisykles, o senus apsaugome. Tačiau NT rinkoje viskas gerokai sudėtingiau. Turime pripažinti realybę: Lietuvoje, o ypač Vilniuje, nemaža dalis negyvenamosios paskirties patalpų de facto jau daug metų naudojamos gyvenimui. Loftai, kūrybinės dirbtuvės, administracinės ir kitokios paskirties patalpos buvo perkamos, parduodamos, įrengiamos, nuomojamos ir naudojamos kaip būstas. Todėl klausimas šiandien yra ne vien tai, ar žmogui turėtų būti leidžiama gyventi gamybinėje patalpoje. Klausimas daug platesnis: ką naujas reguliavimas reikštų jau susiformavusiai NT rinkai ir miestų konversijai?

Loftai tapo viena iš miesto konversijos formų

Vilniuje loftų atsiradimas glaudžiai susijęs su buvusių gamybinių ir kitų nebenaudojamų teritorijų transformacija. Pastatai, praradę savo pirminę funkciją, buvo prikeliami naujam gyvenimui, o dalis jų tapo alternatyvia gyvenamąja erdve.

Galime diskutuoti, ar teisiniu požiūriu tai visada buvo idealus modelis. Tačiau ekonominiu ir urbanistiniu požiūriu negalime apsimesti, kad šio reiškinio nėra.

Konversija dažnai prasideda būtent nuo lankstesnio seno pastato panaudojimo. Investuotojas mato galimybę prikelti nebenaudojamą gamybinį ar administracinį objektą, žmonės – galimybę įsigyti nestandartinį ir dažnai pigesnį NT, o miestas gauna antram gyvenimui prikeltą teritoriją. Todėl kategoriškas signalas, kad negyvenamosios paskirties patalpos negalės būti naudojamos gyvenimui, gali turėti ir kitą efektą – sumažinti ekonominę paskatą konvertuoti senus pastatus. Tai ypač svarbu Vilniuje, kuriame būsto įperkamumas ir taip yra viena aktualiausių NT rinkos problemų. Jeigu iš rinkos pašaliname dalį pigesnės alternatyvios pasiūlos, natūraliai turime klausti: ar toks reguliavimas papildomai nedidins spaudimo gyvenamojo būsto kainoms?

O kas bus su jau nupirktu loftu?

Projektas numato pereinamąjį režimą – iki 2026 m. spalio 31 d. pradėtam naudojimui ne pagal paskirtį būtų taikoma iki tol galiojusi tvarka.

Tai svarbi išlyga, tačiau kartu ji programuoja visiškai naują praktinę problemą: kaip po kelerių ar keliolikos metų įrodysime, kada konkrečiai patalpoje buvo pradėta gyventi?

Įsivaizduokime gana įprastą situaciją. Žmogus 2024 metais įsigijo loftą, jį įsirengė ir pradėjo jame gyventi. 2028 metais nusprendžia jį parduoti. Naujasis savininkas patalpą taip pat ketina naudoti gyvenimui.

Ar tai vis dar bus iki 2026 m. spalio 31 d. pradėto naudojimo tęsinys? Ar naujo savininko gyvenimas bus laikomas nauju naudojimo ne pagal paskirtį atveju? Kokiais įrodymais bus pagrindžiama, kad patalpoje iki nustatytos datos iš tiesų buvo gyvenama – deklaruota gyvenamąja vieta, komunalinių paslaugų sąskaitomis, sutartimis, kitomis faktinėmis aplinkybėmis?

O kas, jeigu loftas pusmetį stovės tuščias ir tik tada bus parduotas?

Tokie klausimai nėra teoriniai. Nuo atsakymų į juos priklausys konkretaus turto vertė ir jo likvidumas. Todėl pereinamoji nuostata, kuri iš pirmo žvilgsnio apsaugo esamus naudotojus, gali tapti naujų ginčų šaltiniu. Ginčysimės jau ne tik dėl to, kaip patalpa naudojama, bet ir nuo kada ji taip naudojama bei ar toks naudojimas buvo nutrūkęs.

Antrinė loftų rinka gali susidurti su problema

Čia atsiranda dar vienas klausimas, kurio, kalbėdami apie naują reguliavimą, neturėtume pamiršti: kas atsitiks su antrine tokių patalpų rinka?

Žmogus, prieš penkerius ar dešimt metų įsigijęs loftą, galėjo investuoti nemažą sumą į jo įrengimą. Šiandien toks objektas turi savo rinkos kainą būtent todėl, kad pirkėjas vertina jį kaip erdvę, kurioje galima gyventi.

Jeigu ateityje naujam pirkėjui nebebūtų aišku, ar jis gali toliau naudoti tą patį objektą gyvenimui, atsirastų teisinė rizika. O teisinė rizika NT rinkoje beveik visada anksčiau ar vėliau virsta finansine rizika. Kiltų klausimų ir finansuotojams: kaip vertinti tokio turto likvidumą? Kokia jo vertė, jeigu potencialių pirkėjų ratas dėl paskirties ir naudojimo apribojimų sumažėja?

Todėl, reguliuodami naudojimą, kartu galime paveikti ir jau egzistuojančio turto vertę. Vis dėlto būtų pernelyg paprasta pasakyti, kad sprendimas – tiesiog leisti gyventi visose negyvenamosios paskirties patalpose. Tuomet kyla priešingas ir visiškai pagrįstas klausimas: kam apskritai reikalingi reikalavimai gyvenamosios paskirties pastatams ir patalpoms?

Gyvenamasis būstas projektuojamas laikantis reikalavimų, susijusių su natūraliu apšvietimu, insoliacija, vėdinimu, akustiniu komfortu, higiena, sauga, automobilių stovėjimo vietomis, infrastruktūra ir kitais kriterijais.Šių reikalavimų laikymasis kainuoja.

Jeigu vienas vystytojas stato gyvenamąjį projektą ir privalo jų laikytis, o kitas įrengia gamybinės, administracinės ar kitos negyvenamosios paskirties patalpas, kurioms taikomi kitokie reikalavimai, tačiau vėliau jos faktiškai naudojamos lygiai taip pat kaip butai, atsiranda akivaizdus reguliavimo disbalansas. Dar daugiau – tokiu atveju pati pastatų paskirties sistema pradeda prarasti prasmę. Jeigu galima statyti pagal vienos paskirties reikalavimus, o naudoti pagal kitos, kodėl apskritai nustatome skirtingus standartus?

Todėl Aplinkos ministerijos keliama problema yra reali. Klausimas ne tas, ar ją reikia spręsti, o kokiu būdu tai daryti.

Užsienis vis dažniau kalba apie konversiją, o ne vien draudimą

Šioje diskusijoje verta pažvelgti ir į kitų šalių patirtį. Didžiuosiuose Europos miestuose susiduriama su panašia dilema: viena vertus, trūksta būsto, kita vertus, miestuose lieka nebenaudojamų biurų, komercinių, pramoninių ir kitų pastatų. Todėl dalis valstybių ieško būdų ne užkirsti kelią jų naudojimui, o palengvinti teisėtą konversiją į gyvenamąją paskirtį.

Pavyzdžiui, Anglijoje veikia vadinamųjų permitted development rights sistema, kuri tam tikrais atvejais leidžia komercinius pastatus konvertuoti į gyvenamuosius supaprastinta tvarka. Pastaraisiais metais šios galimybės buvo plečiamos. Tai, žinoma, nereiškia leidimo gyventi bet kokiame sandėlyje ar gamybinėje patalpoje – išlieka saugos, gyvenimo kokybės ir kiti reikalavimai.

Tačiau pati reguliavimo kryptis įdomi: kai pastatą galima saugiai pritaikyti gyvenimui, valstybė ieško kelio, kaip konversiją padaryti įmanomą, o ne vien kaip ją uždrausti. Lietuvai nebūtina kopijuoti konkretaus užsienio modelio. Tačiau verta kelti tą patį klausimą – ar mūsų reguliavimas neturėtų labiau skatinti teisėtos esamų pastatų transformacijos?

Griežta riba – naujai statomiems objektams

Mano vertinimu, čia reikėtų aiškiai atskirti du dalykus: naujai kuriamą NT ir jau egzistuojantį, istoriškai susiformavusį NT fondą.

Jeigu šiandien vystytojas projektuoja naują pastatą ir nuo pat pradžių ketina jame įrengtas patalpas parduoti žmonėms kaip būstą, nors formaliai jos projektuojamos kaip gamybinės, administracinės patalpos ar kūrybinės dirbtuvės, valstybė turi pagrįstą interesą pasakyti: ne.

Jeigu statome būstą – statykime jį pagal gyvenamajam būstui taikomus reikalavimus.Tokiu atveju draudimas naujai statomuose objektuose naudoti negyvenamosios paskirties patalpas nuolatiniam gyvenimui būtų suprantamas ir kurtų vienodas žaidimo taisykles rinkos dalyviams. Tačiau visiškai kita situacija yra jau egzistuojantis pastatas, kuris prieš dešimt, dvidešimt ar dar daugiau metų turėjo gamybinę funkciją, šiandien jos nebeturi ir yra konvertuojamas į naują miesto audinį. Tokiems objektams, mano nuomone, turėtų būti ieškoma ne draudimo, o aiškaus konversijos mechanizmo. Jeigu patalpa gali užtikrinti esminius saugos, higienos, apšvietimo, vėdinimo ir kitus gyvenimui būtinus kriterijus, valstybė turėtų sudaryti realią galimybę ją pritaikyti gyvenimui ir pakeisti jos paskirtį.

Priešingu atveju rizikuojame susidurti su paradoksalia situacija: mieste trūksta įperkamo būsto, turime tūkstančius kvadratinių metrų nebenaudojamo ar neefektyviai naudojamo NT, tačiau reguliavimu mažiname galimybes vieną problemą spręsti pasitelkiant kitą.

Diskusija dėl Aplinkos ministerijos projekto neturėtų virsti ginču tarp dviejų kraštutinumų – „leisti gyventi visur“ arba „uždrausti gyventi visur, kas registre nevadinama butu“.

Abu variantai turi rimtų trūkumų. Jeigu leidžiame gyventi bet kur, paneigiame gyvenamosios paskirties reglamentavimo logiką ir sukuriame nevienodas konkurencines sąlygas NT vystytojams. Jeigu draudžiame tai jau susiformavusiame NT fonde, rizikuojame mažinti dalies turto vertę ir likvidumą, stabdyti senų pastatų konversiją, dar labiau riboti alternatyvaus būsto pasiūlą ir užprogramuoti ginčus dėl to, kada konkrečioje patalpoje faktiškai pradėta gyventi. Todėl racionaliausia riba galėtų būti brėžiama ne tarp „galima“ ir „negalima“, o tarp naujai statomo ir jau egzistuojančio bei konvertuojamo NT.

Naujiems projektams taisyklė gali ir turi būti aiški: jeigu patalpos kuriamos gyvenimui, jos turi atitikti gyvenamosios paskirties patalpoms keliamus reikalavimus.

Tačiau jau egzistuojantiems ir konvertuojamiems pastatams reikėtų sukurti aiškų, prognozuojamą ir praktiškai įgyvendinamą kelią į gyvenamąją paskirtį.

Nes gera teisė turi ne tik nustatyti taisyklę. Ji turi įvertinti ir realybę, kuri egzistavo iki tos taisyklės pakeitimo.

Laurynas Staniulis

AVOCAD partneris, advokatas ir NT bei statybų teisės ekspertas

Nuo paslėpto gedimo iki sutarties nutraukimo: naudotų automobilių sandorių rizikos verslui

Nors degalų kainos auga, o elektromobilių pardavimai Lietuvoje siekia naujus rekordus, didžiąją šalies automobilių parko dalį vis dar sudaro senesnės transporto priemonės. Jos aktyviai keičia savininkus antrinėje rinkoje – naudotus automobilius perka ir parduoda ne tik gyventojai, bet ir jų prekyba užsiimančios bendrovės, automobilių parkus valdančios įmonės, nuomos, transporto, statybos ir kitų sektorių verslai.

Kartu su didele naudotų automobilių rinka neišvengiama ir teisinių ginčų. Po sandorio paaiškėję techniniai gedimai, nuslėpti defektai, tikrovės neatitinkanti rida ar automobilio istorija, ankstesni eismo įvykiai bei skirtingas pirkėjo ir pardavėjo supratimas, kokios būklės automobilis iš tiesų buvo parduotas, gali tapti ne tik pretenzijų, bet ir teisminio proceso priežastimi.

O verslui tokio ginčo kaina gali būti gerokai didesnė nei automobilio remontas. Tam tikrais atvejais pirkėjas gali siekti nutraukti pirkimo–pardavimo sutartį, susigrąžinti už automobilį sumokėtą kainą ir reikalauti atlyginti kitus patirtus nuostolius.

Advokatų profesinės bendrijos AVOCAD advokatas Mantas Baigys atkreipia dėmesį, kad vien tai, jog automobilis yra naudotas, savaime neatleidžia pardavėjo nuo atsakomybės už jo kokybę. „Versle vis dar pasitaiko požiūris, kad naudotas automobilis parduodamas toks, koks yra, todėl po sandorio visa rizika automatiškai pereina pirkėjui. Teisiniu požiūriu situacija nėra tokia paprasta. Automobilio amžius, rida ir natūralus nusidėvėjimas neabejotinai svarbūs vertinant jo būklę, tačiau pardavėjui išlieka pareiga pateikti teisingą informaciją ir neperduoti pirkėjui automobilio su neatskleistais trūkumais, už kuriuos jis atsako“, – sako M. Baigys.

„Naudotas“ nereiškia „be atsakomybės“

Lietuvos teismų praktikoje pripažįstama, kad naudotas automobilis negali būti vertinamas pagal tokius pačius kokybės kriterijus kaip naujas. Pirkėjas turi įvertinti jo amžių, ridą, ankstesnio naudojimo intensyvumą ir natūralų nusidėvėjimą. Tačiau net ir naudotas automobilis, jeigu šalys nesusitarė kitaip, turi būti tinkamas naudoti pagal įprastą paskirtį.

Vien tai, kad automobilis važiuoja, dar nebūtinai reiškia, kad jis yra tinkamos kokybės. Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas yra pažymėjęs, kad naudoto automobilio kokybė vertinama atsižvelgiant ir į tai, ar juo galima naudotis pagal paskirtį be didelių trikdžių, nepatogumų ar papildomų sąnaudų.

Verslui tai ypač aktualu todėl, kad ginčo objektu dažnai tampa ne tik pats gedimas, bet ir tai, ką pardavėjas apie automobilį žinojo, ką nurodė pirkėjui ir kas buvo užfiksuota sutartyje.

Rida, eismo įvykiai, esami techniniai gedimai, ankstesni reikšmingi pažeidimai ar kitos automobilio vertę ir tinkamumą naudoti lemiančios aplinkybės gali turėti esminę reikšmę. Teismų praktikoje yra buvę atvejų, kai klaidingai nurodyta automobilio rida pripažinta tokiu reikšmingu neatitikimu, kuris gali sudaryti pagrindą reikalauti nutraukti pirkimo–pardavimo sutartį. Pasak advokato, atsukta rida paslėptas defektas. Teismų praktikoje laikomasi nuostatos, kad ridos suklastojimą reikėtų vertinti ne tik kaip melagingos informacijos apie parduodamą daiktą pateikimą, bet ir kaip paslėptą daikto trūkumą, kurio pasekmės jį įsigijusiam asmeniui pasireikš vėliau – tiek būtinybe esminius automobilio agregatus, detales keisti kur kas anksčiau nei galima buvo planuoti įsigyjant automobilį, tiek valdant mažesnės vertės, nei sumokėtą daiktą, tiek gaunant ženkliai mažesnę, nei turėtų kainą pardavimo atveju.

„Profesionaliam automobilių pardavėjui ypač rizikinga sutartyje apsiriboti bendromis formuluotėmis, kad pirkėjas automobilį apžiūrėjo ir dėl jo būklės pretenzijų neturi. Tokia sąlyga savaime nėra universalus skydas nuo atsakomybės. Kilus ginčui bus vertinama, ką pardavėjas žinojo ar turėjo žinoti, kokią informaciją pateikė, kokie trūkumai buvo atskleisti ir ar pirkėjas realiai galėjo juos nustatyti“, – pažymi AVOCAD advokatas M. Baigys.

Kada automobilis gali „sugrįžti“ pardavėjui?

Viena finansiškai skaudžiausių ginčo baigčių automobilių prekybos verslui – pirkimo–pardavimo sutarties nutraukimas ir restitucija. Tokiu atveju pardavėjui gali tekti susigrąžinti automobilį ir grąžinti už jį gautą kainą, o priklausomai nuo konkrečios situacijos gali kilti klausimas ir dėl kitų pirkėjo patirtų nuostolių.

Tačiau kiekvienas po automobilio pardavimo nustatytas gedimas automatiškai nereiškia, kad pirkėjas gali grąžinti transporto priemonę ir pareikalauti visos sumokėtos kainos.

Tai iliustruoja ir naujausia Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktika. 2026 m. teismas, nagrinėdamas ginčą dėl nekokybiško automobilio, akcentavo teisių gynimo būdų eiliškumą ir sutarties nutraukimo, kaip griežčiausios priemonės, pagrįstumą. Vartojimo santykiuose pardavėjui paprastai pirmiausia turi būti suteikta galimybė užtikrinti tinkamą sutarties vykdymą – pašalinti trūkumą ar pakeisti prekę, o sutarties nutraukimui turi egzistuoti įstatyme numatytos sąlygos.

Svarbu tai, kad ši konkreti byla buvo susijusi su vartojimo pirkimo–pardavimo santykiais. Kai naudotą automobilį savo verslo veiklai perka juridinis asmuo, vartotojams nustatyta speciali apsauga savaime netaikoma. B2B santykiuose dar didesnę reikšmę įgyja sutarties sąlygos, abiejų šalių profesionalumas, iki sandorio atliktas automobilio patikrinimas ir konkretūs pardavėjo pareiškimai bei garantijos dėl transporto priemonės būklės.

„Sutarties nutraukimas yra labai rimta teisinė pasekmė, todėl vien fakto, kad po sandorio automobilis sugedo, nepakanka. Reikia atsakyti į daug klausimų: ar trūkumas egzistavo automobilio perdavimo metu, ar pirkėjas apie jį žinojo arba galėjo žinoti, ar pardavėjas pateikė teisingą informaciją ir kiek pats trūkumas yra reikšmingas. Būtent šios aplinkybės dažniausiai ir nulemia ginčo kryptį“, – aiškina M. Baigys.

Gedimą radęs pirkėjas taip pat turi pareigų

Rizikų turi ne tik pardavėjas. Automobilį savo veiklai perkanti įmonė taip pat turėtų pasirūpinti įrodymais dar iki sudarant sandorį.

Svarbūs gali būti automobilio diagnostikos duomenys, serviso išvados, istorijos ataskaitos, skelbimo kopija, pardavėjo pateikta informacija ir šalių susirašinėjimas. Jeigu gedimas nustatomas jau po automobilio įsigijimo, reikšmę įgyja ir tai, kaip elgiasi pats pirkėjas.

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas yra nagrinėjęs situaciją, kai pirkėjas pardavėją apie automobilio trūkumus informavo tik jau pradėjęs remonto darbus. Dėl to pardavėjas neteko galimybės pats įvertinti nustatytų gedimų ir pasirinkti jų šalinimo būdo. Šios aplinkybės buvo reikšmingos sprendžiant dėl pardavėjo atsakomybės ir atlygintinų išlaidų.

„Jeigu po sandorio nustatomas rimtas gedimas, pirmas žingsnis neturėtų būti automobilio išardymas ar brangus remontas savo pasirinkimu. Pirmiausia trūkumą reikėtų tinkamai užfiksuoti ir apie jį informuoti kitą sutarties šalį. Priešingu atveju net ir pagrįstą reikalavimą vėliau gali būti gerokai sunkiau įrodyti“, – komentuoja AVOCAD advokatas.

Keli sakiniai sutartyje gali kainuoti dešimtis tūkstančių

Automobilių prekyba užsiimančioms įmonėms viena svarbiausių praktinių taisyklių – kuo tiksliau užfiksuoti parduodamos transporto priemonės būklę.

Jeigu žinoma apie konkrečius gedimus, ankstesnius pažeidimus, atliktus reikšmingus remonto darbus ar kitus svarbius trūkumus, juos verta aiškiai įvardyti sutartyje arba jos priede. Taip pat svarbu išsaugoti automobilio diagnostikos, remonto ir aptarnavimo dokumentus, ridą pagrindžiančius duomenis bei informaciją, kuri buvo pateikta pirkėjui prieš sudarant sandorį.

Atsargiai reikėtų vertinti ir informaciją skelbimuose. Jei automobilis reklamuojamas kaip „idealios būklės“, „be defektų“, nurodoma konkreti rida ar pateikiami kiti kategoriški teiginiai apie jo istoriją ir techninę būklę, kilus ginčui tokia informacija gali tapti reikšmingu įrodymu, kokios automobilio savybės pirkėjui buvo deklaruotos.Kita vertus, ir automobilį perkanti įmonė neturėtų manyti, kad sutarties nutraukimas visais atvejais bus paprasčiausias kelias. Ginčo atveju reikės vertinti trūkumo pobūdį ir reikšmingumą, jo atsiradimo momentą, pardavėjo pateiktą informaciją, galimybę gedimą pašalinti ir pačios sutarties sąlygas.

„Naudoto automobilio sandoryje keli sakiniai sutartyje gali lemti dešimčių tūkstančių eurų ginčo baigtį. Todėl tiek parduodančiam, tiek perkančiam verslui svarbu ne tik pasirašyti standartinę transporto priemonės pirkimo–pardavimo sutartį, bet ir tiksliai užfiksuoti faktinę automobilio būklę, žinomus trūkumus, šalių pareiškimus bei atsakomybės ribas. Kuo daugiau neaiškumų paliekama sandorio metu, tuo daugiau erdvės ginčui lieka vėliau“, – apibendrina AVOCAD advokatas Mantas Baigys.

 

Eismo įvykis užsienyje: kada žalos atlyginimo iš užsienio draudiko galima reikalauti Lietuvoje?

Tarptautinius pervežimus vykdančiam verslui eismo įvykiai kitose Europos Sąjungos valstybėse yra kasdienybė. Su tuo gali susidurti ir bet kuris automobiliu po Europą keliaujantis ar eismo įvykyje kaip pėstysis nukentėjęs Lietuvos Respublikos pilietis. Tačiau dažnai tuo rūpesčiai nesibaigia, o tikrieji sunkumai prasideda po eismo įvykio – kai reikia atgauti patirtus nuostolius iš kitoje Europos Sąjungos valstybėje veikiančios draudimo bendrovės.

Nors ES sistema sukurta taip, kad nukentėjusiam asmeniui nereikėtų vienam aiškintis su kitos valstybės narės draudiku – draudimo bendrovės kitose valstybėse narėse turi žalų administravimo atstovus, – praktikoje pats atstovo buvimas dar negarantuoja greito ir visiško nuostolių atlyginimo.

Pasitaiko situacijų, kai žalos administravimas užsitęsia dėl to, kad jo atstovas arba pats draudikas vilkina sprendimo priėmimą, nustatytais terminais neišmoka draudimo išmokos, nesutinka atlyginti visų nuostolių, vis prašo papildomų dokumentų ar paaiškinimų arba skirtingai vertina eismo įvykio aplinkybes. Vežėjui tai gali reikšti ne tik ilgą laiką neatlygintas išlaidas už transporto priemonės, krovinio gelbėjimą, eismo įvykio vietos sutvarkymą (kurios ES šalyse gali kainuoti milžiniškas sumas), tačiau ir įmonės veiklos sutrikdymą bei lemti dar didesnius nuostolius dėl prastovų, negautų pajamų ir pan. „Verslui svarbiausia suprasti, kad kitos valstybės draudiko sprendimas nėra paskutinis taškas. Jeigu atsakingas draudikas nepagrįstai atsisako atlyginti visus nuostolius arba žalos administravimas užsitęsia itin ilgai, reikia įvertinti, ar toliau susirašinėti su draudiku, ar vis tik savo teises apginti teisme“, – sako AVOCAD advokatas, draudimo teisės ekspertas Julius Sakalauskas.

Eismo įvykis užsienyje nebūtinai reiškia bylą užsienyje

Viena svarbiausių ES motorinių transporto priemonių valdytojų civilinės atsakomybės draudimo sistemos garantijų nukentėjusiam asmeniui – galimybė už eismo įvykį atsakingo asmens draudikui pareikšti tiesioginį ieškinį savo valstybės teisme. ES teisės aktai numato specialią eismo įvykiuose nukentėjusių asmenų apsaugą. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas yra išaiškinęs, kad eismo įvykyje nukentėjęs asmuo, kai tenkinamos tam reikalingos sąlygos, gali tiesiogiai pareikšti ieškinį atsakingo asmens draudikui savo gyvenamosios vietos valstybės teisme.

Lietuvos teisėje ši galimybė taip pat įtvirtinta aiškiai: Transporto priemonių valdytojų civilinės atsakomybės privalomojo draudimo įstatymas numato, kad Lietuvos Respublikoje nuolat gyvenantis nukentėjęs trečiasis asmuo turi teisę prieš kitos ES valstybės narės atsakingą draudiką pradėti teismo procesą Lietuvoje.

Verslo atveju kiekvienos situacijos jurisdikcija turi būti vertinama individualiai – atsižvelgiant į įmonės buveinę, transporto priemonės registracijos vietą, atsakingo draudiko veiklos vietą ir kitus konkrečios bylos aspektus. „Vežėjui, kurio transportas nuolat juda po skirtingas Europos valstybes, galimybė ginčą spręsti Lietuvoje yra labai reikšminga. Užuot organizavus procesą kitoje šalyje, ieškojus vietos teisininkų ir sprendus kalbos bei procesinius klausimus, pirmiausia verta įvertinti, ar konkretus ginčas negali būti nagrinėjamas Lietuvos teisme“, – pažymi J. Sakalauskas.

Kodėl svarbus draudiko atstovas Lietuvoje?

Kitos ES valstybės draudiko atstovas pretenzijoms dėl padarytos žalos nagrinėti Lietuvoje nėra vien tik kontaktinis asmuo, kuriam persiunčiami dokumentai. Jis skiriamas žalos administravimo ir išmokos mokėjimo funkcijoms šio draudiko vardu atlikti.

Svarbi ir dar viena praktinė aplinkybė: ES Teisingumo Teismas yra konstatavęs, kad žalų sureguliavimo atstovo įgaliojimai apima ir jo pareigą priimti teismo procesinius dokumentus, reikalingus procesui dėl žalos atlyginimo nukentėjusio asmens nuolatinės buveinės vietos teisme pradėti.

Tai praktiškai labai palengvina nukentėjusio asmens padėtį ir pagreitina teismo procesą, nes tam, kad užsienio draudikas būtų informuotas apie kitoje ES valstybėje pradėtą teismo procesą, užtenka ieškinį ir teismo dokumentus įteikti šio draudiko atstovui. Be to, taupomi bylos kaštai, nes nereikia visų dokumentų versti į užsienio kalbą ir siųsti tiesiogiai į kitą valstybę.

Kada verta nebelaukti?

Pasak J. Sakalausko, viena dažnesnių klaidų – pernelyg ilgai tikėtis, kad draudiko pozicija pasikeis vien tęsiant susirašinėjimą. „Jeigu draudikas atsisako atlyginti pagrįstus nuostolius, siūlo išmokėti akivaizdžiai per mažą draudimo išmoką arba vilkina draudžiamojo įvykio administravimą ir daugiau kaip 90 dienų neišmoka draudimo išmokos, verta pagalvoti ir apie teisminę ginčo perspektyvą. Iš savo praktikos galiu pasakyti, kad dažnu atveju aiškiai suformuluotas reikalavimas teisme gali pakeisti derybų dinamiką ir paspartinti pagrįsto sprendimo dėl draudimo išmokos išmokėjimo priėmimą“, – sako advokatas.

Todėl po eismo įvykio užsienyje svarbu nuo pat pradžių rinkti ne tik paties įvykio, bet ir visų nuostolių įrodymus: policijos ar kitus įvykio dokumentus, nuotraukas, remonto sąmatas ir sąskaitas, transportavimo bei saugojimo išlaidas, susirašinėjimą su draudiku. Verslui papildomai svarbūs dokumentai, galintys pagrįsti transporto priemonės prastovą ar kitus tiesiogiai dėl įvykio atsiradusius nuostolius. Kiekvienu atveju atlygintinos žalos apimtis priklauso nuo konkrečių aplinkybių ir taikytinos teisės, todėl vien patirtos išlaidos dar savaime nereiškia, kad visa jų suma bus priteista.

Užsienio draudikas nėra „nepasiekiamas“

Eismo įvykis kitoje valstybėje dažnai sukuria psichologinį barjerą – atrodo, kad ginčas su Švedijos, Vokietijos, Prancūzijos ar kitos Europos šalies draudiku automatiškai reiškia sudėtingą procesą užsienyje.

Tačiau ES reguliavimo tikslas yra priešingas – suteikti nukentėjusiam asmeniui realias galimybes savo teises apginti gyvenamojoje ar buveinės valstybėje, kai tam yra numatytos teisinės sąlygos. „Todėl vežėjams rekomenduočiau į užsienyje patirtą žalą žiūrėti kaip į įprastą ir kontroliuojamą verslo riziką. Svarbu tinkamai apskaičiuoti ir suprasti visą padarytą žalą, ją pagrįsti dokumentais, įvertinti draudiko argumentus ir kiek dar galite laukti jums priklausančių nuostolių atlyginimo. Ir, jei atsakingas draudikas nesilaiko draudimo išmokos išmokėjimo terminų, vilkina sprendimo priėmimą arba pasiūlo akivaizdžiai per mažą draudimo išmoką, siūlyčiau patikrinti galimybę ginčą perkelti į teismą Lietuvoje. Ir kartais vien tai tampa postūmiu draudikui iš naujo įvertinti savo pozicijos pagrįstumą“, – apibendrina AVOCAD advokatas Julius Sakalauskas.

 

Debtors Abroad: How Businesses Can Recover Their Money Without Getting Caught Up in a Costly Legal Process

For Lithuanian businesses that export goods or provide services to foreign customers, an unpaid invoice becomes a much more complicated issue when the debtor is registered in another country. The transportation sector faces this problem particularly often, as services are provided across different countries, the chain of clients can be long, and payments often depend on several different market participants. In such cases, even a debt that seems clear at first glance can turn into a complex cross-border debt collection case. Where should one file a claim—in a Lithuanian court or a foreign court? Which country’s law will apply? Will a court judgment issued in Lithuania actually be enforced abroad?

Kamilė Šemeklytė, an attorney at the AVOCAD law firm, says that in cases of international debt collection, one of the biggest mistakes is to start by drafting a complaint without first answering a far more practical question: where are the debtor’s assets, and will it actually be possible to collect the debt from them? “You may win the case, but what matters to a business is not the court’s decision itself, but the money in the bank account. Therefore, before initiating proceedings, it’s worth assessing the debtor’s financial situation, checking whether insolvency proceedings have been initiated against them, and determining where their bank accounts, real estate, or other registrable assets are located. Sometimes such an assessment fundamentally changes the entire debt collection strategy,” says K. Šemeklytė.

Egidijus Langys, managing partner at AVOCAD and an attorney who specializes in legal issues related to carriers, notes that this problem is particularly acute in the transportation sector due to the very structure of the business. “The carrier may be in Lithuania, the client in Germany, the freight forwarder in the Netherlands, and the consignee in yet another country. When an unpaid invoice arises, it quickly becomes clear that simply knowing who owes the money isn’t enough. You need to understand where that debt can actually be collected and whether the process itself is economically viable,” says E. Langys.

The first document worth looking at is the contract

According to lawyers, the international debt collection process actually begins as soon as a contract is signed with a foreign partner.

Two conditions are particularly important here: which country’s law applies to the contract, and which country’s court will resolve the dispute.

Under EU law, the parties may generally choose the law applicable to their contract. If no such choice is made, the applicable law is determined in accordance with the rules set forth in the EU’s “Rome I” Regulation. For example, the law of the seller’s country generally applies to contracts for the sale of goods, while the law of the service provider’s country generally applies to service contracts, although exceptions are possible in specific situations.

Jurisdiction is no less important. The general rule in the EU is that a case is brought in the country where the defendant is located; however, in contractual relationships, the place where the contractual obligation was to be performed may also be relevant. In addition, the parties to a business contract may agree in advance on the jurisdiction of the courts of a specific country.

“A single sentence in a contract can sometimes mean thousands of euros in future litigation costs. If a Lithuanian company agrees in a contract that all disputes will be heard in a court in another country, it will have to factor in the costs of local attorneys, translations, and litigation should a debt of 10,000–20,000 euros arise. Therefore, jurisdiction clauses should not be treated as a mere technical detail at the end of a contract,” emphasizes K. Šemeklytė.

Langys adds that in international business relationships, companies often pay too little attention to the terms of a contract as long as the relationship is going smoothly. “As long as invoices are paid on time, provisions regarding jurisdiction or applicable law seem like a mere formality. However, when a dispute arises, it becomes clear that these provisions can determine the duration of the proceedings, their cost, and even whether it is worth litigating over a specific debt at all,” he says.

When the debtor does not dispute the debt, the process may be simpler

If the debtor is located in another EU country and does not substantially dispute the debt, one option is the European Payment Order procedure.

It is designed for cross-border uncontested civil and commercial monetary claims. The process is carried out using standardized forms, and if the debtor does not file an objection, the European payment order becomes enforceable in another EU country without the need for a separate trial.

For smaller claims, the European Small Claims Procedure—designed for cross-border claims not exceeding 5,000 euros—may also be considered.

However, according to K. Šemeklytė, the amount of the debt alone should not automatically determine the choice of legal process.

“First, you need to determine whether the debtor is disputing the debt. If there are claims regarding the quality of goods, the performance of work, termination of the contract, or set-off, a formally simpler procedure does not necessarily mean that the dispute will remain straightforward,” notes an AVOCAD attorney.

Sometimes it’s more important to “freeze” the funds in a timely manner than to wait for a court ruling

Another EU legal instrument that may be particularly relevant to businesses is the European Account Freeze Order.

It allows a court in one EU country to freeze a debtor’s funds in a bank account in another EU country in a cross-border case. In certain cases, this can be done without first notifying the debtor.

“If there are signs that a debtor is beginning to transfer assets, shut down operations, or evade creditors, time becomes one of the most important factors. A favorable ruling obtained a year later may be of little value if, by that time, there are no longer any assets against which to enforce the judgment,” says K. Šemeklytė.

Langys emphasizes that in business, procrastination often costs more than the legal process itself. “In practice, we see situations where a creditor waits half a year or a year, hoping that the partner will eventually pay, sending reminders and negotiating, but in the meantime, the debtor’s financial situation deteriorates. Therefore, one of the most important decisions is to recognize in a timely manner when negotiations still make sense and when it is time to move on to legal measures,” says E. Langys.

A Lithuanian court ruling does not mean a new case from scratch in the EU

Businesses often fear that, even if they obtain a favorable ruling from a Lithuanian court, they will have to start the entire process over again in the debtor’s country. This is generally not the case within the EU.

Under the “Brussels I bis” Regulation, judgments in civil and commercial matters rendered in one EU Member State may be enforced in another Member State without a prior separate exequatur procedure. A creditor may apply to the enforcement authorities of the country where the debtor’s assets are located by submitting the court judgment and the required documents. “A creditor may have a perfectly valid claim in Lithuania, but if all of the debtor’s assets are located in Germany, France, or Spain, enforcement proceedings will ultimately have to be carried out there. For this reason, an analysis of local procedures and the debtor’s assets should be conducted even before choosing a course of litigation,” says K. Šemeklytė.

According to Langys, it is precisely at this stage that it is important for businesses not to confuse two things: a won case and the actual recovery of the debt. “A court ruling is very important, but from a business perspective, it does not mark the end of the process. The real result is achieved only when the money is returned to the creditor. Therefore, from day one, it’s worth thinking not only about how to prove the debt, but also about how the judgment will be enforced later,” notes E. Langys.

The debt may also increase due to interest and collection costs

Businesses should also keep in mind that the claim is not necessarily limited to the amount of the unpaid invoice.

EU rules on late payments in commercial transactions provide for the right to claim interest on late payments under certain conditions. In addition, the creditor is entitled to compensation of at least 40 euros for collection costs, and reasonable additional expenses may also be reimbursed.“In practice, it is worth calculating the total claim precisely—the principal debt, interest, contractual penalties (if applicable), and any potential debt collection costs. This is also important during negotiations—it must be clear to the debtor that delay does not reduce their obligation,” says K. Šemeklytė.

Outside the EU – each country must be assessed individually

When the debtor is located outside the European Union, there is no single, universal mechanism. It is necessary to review international treaties, the laws of the specific country, the jurisdiction or arbitration provisions set forth in the agreement between the parties, and the rules governing the recognition of foreign court judgments.

According to E. Langis, in such cases it is particularly important for businesses to assess the costs of the upcoming process in advance. “In international debt collection, you always have to do the math. Sometimes a claim is entirely legally justified, but the costs of collecting it may be disproportionate to the debt itself. Therefore, a professional assessment begins not with the question of whether we can file a lawsuit, but with the question of which approach will yield the best economic outcome for the business,” says E. Langys.

Šemeklytės teigimu, svarbiausias principas verslui – neatidėlioti. “Tarptautinė skola savaime nėra beviltiška skola. Europos Sąjungoje kreditoriams sukurta nemažai veiksmingų instrumentų. Tačiau kuo ilgiau laukiama, tuo didesnė rizika, kad pasikeis skolininko finansinė būklė, prasidės nemokumo procesas ar neliks turto. Todėl gavus aiškų signalą, kad užsienio partneris neketina atsiskaityti, verta ne siųsti penktą priminimą, o įvertinti konkrečią išieškojimo strategiją“, – apibendrina K. Šemeklytė.

An important decision for carriers: Following an initiated dialogue, it is proposed to allow tax arrears to be paid in installments

The news that reached nearly a thousand Lithuanian carriers this summer regarding potential tax arrears from previous years on freight vehicles registered in Lithuania caused considerable tension in the transportation sector. Companies had to quickly assess their obligations spanning several years and their potential impact on cash flow.

Following a dialogue initiated and continued by LINAVA, the Lithuanian National Association of Road Carriers, with the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration (LTSA), the Ministry of Finance, the State Tax Inspectorate, and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, a solution is taking shape that would give carriers more time to settle their accounts with the state. The LTSA has drafted a procedure for the installment payment of taxes on freight vehicles registered in Lithuania. It provides carriers whose tax arrears exceed 10,000 euros with the option to defer payment for six months—from January 1, 2027, to June 30, 2027—and pay in equal monthly installments.

LINAVA: It is important that the sector's arguments were heard

Discussions regarding the tax payment procedure began when carriers raised the issue—not of the tax obligation itself, but of the timeframe within which businesses must assess and pay the amounts accrued in previous periods.

In early September, the issue was discussed with the LTSA and later at the Ministry of Finance, with representatives from the ministry, the State Tax Inspectorate, and the transportation sector in attendance. One of LINAVOS’s main arguments is that significant obligations from previous periods were not included in the companies’ 2026 budgets, so paying them off in a short period of time could significantly impact working capital and the fulfillment of other financial obligations for some carriers. “From the very beginning, our position has been clear—carriers do not dispute their obligation to pay taxes. However, when it comes to obligations accrued in previous periods, businesses must be given realistic conditions to assess and fulfill them. We are pleased that the authorities have heeded the sector’s arguments and that the dialogue has shifted toward finding a concrete solution,” – says Narūnas Raulinaitis, Secretary General of the Lithuanian National Road Carriers’ Association “LINAVA.” According to him, the option to pay in installments would, first and foremost, provide companies with greater predictability and allow them to properly plan their cash flows.

It's important for carriers not to wait until the last day

Although the payment schedule is still being finalized, it is important for carriers to assess their potential tax liabilities from previous periods now. By October 1, companies need to have assessed their tax liabilities and calculated the amounts due. Meanwhile, according to the draft payment deferral procedure currently prepared by the LTSA, applications for deferral of arrears would be accepted until October 31, 2026. This is an important deadline: the draft stipulates that applications submitted after October 31 will not be considered. In the application, the carrier should specify the tax year, the license plate numbers of the vehicles for which the arrears were incurred, and the amount of arrears attributable to each vehicle.

E. Langys: It's important to consider not only the amount but also the payment terms

Egidijus Langys, managing partner and attorney at the AVOCAD law firm, says that the most important thing for businesses right now is to accurately assess their situation and prepare for the final regulations without waiting for the deadlines to expire. “In this situation, we are not talking about challenging the obligation to pay taxes, but rather about a proportionate way to fulfill this obligation. When a tax arrears has accumulated over a longer period, it is important for businesses to have a realistic opportunity to assess the amount, plan their cash flows, and properly settle their accounts with the government. From this perspective, paying in installments is a rational solution,” says E. Langys.

The attorney recommends that carriers begin organizing information now regarding the periods and vehicles for which arrears may have accrued, and accurately calculate the amount of those arrears. “The most important practical advice for companies is not to wait until the last day. They should assess not only the amount of the arrears but also whether the company will meet the conditions set forth in the final regulations. Companies with arrears exceeding 50,000 euros should be particularly careful—the draft imposes additional requirements for securing obligations on them,” notes E. Langys.

For arrears exceeding 50,000 euros—a bank guarantee or a pledge of assets

Under the draft prepared by the LTSA, the special payment plan would be available to entities whose tax arrears exceed 10,000 euros. However, for companies with arrears exceeding 50,000 euros, an additional and financially significant condition is stipulated. If an agreement is entered into regarding tax arrears exceeding 50,000 euros, the carrier must, no later than January 1, 2027, provide the LTSA at its own expense with one of two measures to secure the fulfillment of its obligation: an extract from the mortgage registry or a bank guarantee.

If you choose to pledge property as collateral, an extract from the mortgage registry should confirm that the value of the pledged property is not less than the amount of the tax arrears specified in the contract.

If a bank guarantee is chosen, its amount should also be no less than the total amount of the arrears specified in the contract, and the guarantee itself should remain valid until at least September 30, 2027.

This means that transportation companies with larger outstanding balances should assess in advance not only the payment schedule but also the costs and options for securing the future obligation—whether the company will be able to pledge assets of sufficient value or will need to approach a bank for the necessary guarantee.

The payment plan would not be interest-free either—interest would be charged on the remaining balance. If the agreed-upon payment schedule is not followed, the project provides for a late payment penalty of 0.1% for each calendar day past due.

Payments would be spread out over six months—from January 1, 2027, to June 30, 2027—in equal monthly installments.

The LTSA notes that the purpose of the proposed regulation is to balance two interests: to enable carriers experiencing temporary financial difficulties to continue their operations, while at the same time ensuring that the fee is paid into the state budget.

Money Given to a Former Partner—A Gift or a Debt? A Lawyer Explains When It Can Be Recovered

During a relationship, one partner may transfer money to the other for rent, medical treatment, daily necessities, beauty treatments, or other personal expenses. However, when the relationship ends, the question often arises as to whether such funds were transferred as a gift, financial support, or, after all, as a loan that must be repaid. It is important to distinguish between situations involving financial transactions between spouses and those involving financial relationships between individuals who live together and share a common household—in such cases, the legal assessment may differ. The situations relevant here are those in which the individuals had a close relationship but were not married, did not live together, and did not share a household.

Karolina Briliūtė, an attorney at the AVOCAD law firm, says that the mere fact that one person transferred or handed over money to another does not, in and of itself, create an obligation to return it. In the event of a dispute, the most important thing is to determine on what basis the funds were transferred and what both parties had agreed upon at the time. “A close relationship does not in itself mean that all the money transferred to a partner was a gift, nor that it was a loan. In a legal dispute, the fundamental question that must be answered is whether the funds were transferred with a clear agreement—or one implied by the circumstances—to repay them,” emphasizes K. Briliūtė.

A bank account for transfers alone may not be enough

The easiest situation is when the money was transferred via bank transfer and the payment description states “loan,” “I’m lending,” or another clear phrase. However, even such a record is not the only possible evidence. The couple’s correspondence via text messages, Messenger, WhatsApp, or email can be highly significant. For example, one partner asks to borrow money, the other agrees, and later the recipient writes that they will repay it once they receive their paycheck, asks for more time, or offers to repay the debt in installments. “The entire context is very important in disputes. Sometimes a single sentence in a conversation—such as a promise to repay the money—combined with bank transfers and the parties’ subsequent behavior can become significant evidence. Therefore, when a relationship ends, you shouldn’t rush to delete messages or other communications,” says an AVOCAD attorney. It may also be significant that the former partner has already repaid part of the money. Such behavior, together with other evidence, may indicate that the obligation to repay was acknowledged.

It is much more difficult to prove cases where money was transferred in cash and no document was signed.

In certain cases, the Civil Code requires that a loan agreement be in writing, and for larger amounts transferred in cash, it also requires notarization. Therefore, transferring a large sum of money “hand-to-hand” without any supporting documentation can later lead to serious problems in proving the transaction. “In the course of their relationships, people naturally do not always formalize their financial agreements with one another. However, the larger the amount transferred, the more important it is to leave at least a minimal written record—an agreement, a message, or confirmation that the money was received and will be repaid,” notes K. Briliūtė.

"Pay it back when you can" doesn't mean you won't have to pay it back

Another common situation is when money is lent, but no specific repayment date was agreed upon. According to the lawyer, this alone does not negate the right to demand repayment of the loan. The Civil Code provides rules for cases where the loan repayment deadline has not been set or where the money must be repaid upon demand. Therefore, in such a situation, one of the first practical steps should be to issue a clear written demand for repayment. It should specifically list the amounts transferred, the circumstances of the transfer, and demand repayment. “Phrases like ‘pay me back later’ or ‘when you can’ do not necessarily mean that the money was a gift. However, in the event of a dispute, you’ll again have to prove that the parties had agreed on a loan in the first place, which is why written communication becomes particularly important here,” explains K. Briliūtė.

Did you pay not to your partner, but on behalf of your partner?

The situation may be different when the money was never transferred to the partner’s account in the first place. For example, one person may have paid another’s rent, dental bills, veterinary bills, beauty treatments, or other service bills directly. In such cases, the legal basis for claiming the money is not necessarily a loan. The Civil Code provides for situations where one person fulfills another person’s obligation to their creditor. “If the documents clearly show that you used your own money to pay a specific obligation that another person was supposed to fulfill, there may be grounds to demand the return of these funds. However, in such cases, it must also be determined whether the payment was a gift, voluntary assistance, or some other form of payment made without compensation,” says the lawyer.

If it is determined that a monetary obligation exists and the debtor fails to fulfill it on time, the Civil Code allows for the recovery of interest in certain cases. When bringing a case to court, one may also request procedural interest on the awarded amount until the court’s decision is fully enforced. This means that a debtor who ignores a demand to repay a debt for a long time does not necessarily benefit—the final amount due may be greater than the amount that was originally owed.

What if your ex-partner has moved abroad?

Living abroad does not in itself mean that it is no longer possible to recover the money. If your former partner lives in another European Union country, the first step is to determine which country’s court has jurisdiction to hear the specific dispute. Depending on the circumstances, the simplified European Union cross-border claim procedures may also be applicable. “In such cases, practical information is crucial—where the person actually lives, where they earn their income, and where they hold assets. A court ruling is only one part of the process; for the creditor, its actual enforcement is also crucial,” notes K. Briliūtė.

What might the other side say?

Of course, there are two sides to every dispute. The person being asked to return the money may argue that no loan was ever made—that the funds were gifts, voluntary financial assistance, or personal expenses that the other person chose to cover of their own free will. Since this article deals with individuals who did not live together and did not maintain a joint household, the argument regarding “joint expenses of the couple” would not, in and of itself, be as clear-cut as it would be in the case of individuals living together. Nevertheless, each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It may be significant from the debtor’s perspective that the transfers never specified “loan” as the purpose, the correspondence did not mention repayment, and the person who transferred the funds did not ask for them to be repaid for a long time.

Therefore, according to K. Briliūtė, in cases of this nature, it is generally not enough for the court to simply see a long list of transfers on a bank statement. “The key question is usually not whether the money was transferred, but whether it can be proven that it was transferred with an obligation to repay it. This is precisely where a gift, voluntary financial support, and a civil obligation differ,” summarizes the AVOCAD attorney.

Therefore, clarity is of the utmost importance in such situations. Bank transfers, their purpose, correspondence, accounts, receipts confirming receipt of funds, and repayment agreements can be of crucial importance in determining whether the money transferred to a former partner was legally a gift or a debt to be repaid.

Changes to the Per Diem Payment Procedure for Carriers: What Do You Need to Do Before October?

Effective October 1, 2026, the procedure for reducing per diem allowances paid to employees on business trips will change. These changes are particularly relevant to the transportation and logistics sector, where business trips are a routine part of work organization. Egidijus Langys, managing partner and attorney at the law firm AVOCAD, says that this change is important for carriers not only because of the new formal requirements. In the transportation sector, per diem allowances are a significant part of work organization and employee costs, so any change in regulation has a direct impact on companies’ day-to-day operations. “It is important for carriers not only to know that the rules are changing starting in October, but also to understand how they will affect the actual organization of work. In the transportation sector, per diems are not a one-off administrative issue—they are a system applied daily to hundreds or even thousands of trips. Therefore, the most important thing now is to assess your own practices and prepare for the changes before they take effect,” says Egidijus Langys, managing partner at AVOCAD.

AVOCAD attorney Viktorija Dubovskienė points out that, before October, carriers should not only familiarize themselves with the new rules but also review their companies’ existing internal documents and actual practices for setting per diem allowances. “The topic of per diems is not new to carriers, but in practice we still see situations where a company’s internal documents leave too much discretion to the decision-making manager or responsible person. It is precisely these vague rules that can become a problem in the event of a dispute,” says V. Dubovskienė.

It is not enough to meet the minimum threshold until October

Under the current regulations, an employer may pay per diem allowances that are lower than the maximum amounts set by the government; however, such a reduction must be properly documented in the company’s records.

It is important to note that simply setting a minimum allowable daily allowance is not enough. Lower amounts must be specific, and their application must be justified by objective circumstances.

In case law, the reduction of per diem allowances is primarily linked to their purpose—to compensate for an employee’s additional expenses during a business trip. Therefore, the most reliable criteria are those that actually reduce such employee expenses, such as meals, lodging, or other conditions of the business trip provided or paid for by the employer.

Meanwhile, linking the amount of per diem allowances to an employee’s length of service, work quality, violations committed, damages, or other criteria for evaluating an employee’s performance is significantly riskier. “Per diem allowances should not become a means of incentivizing or disciplining an employee. If a lower amount is set solely because the employer is dissatisfied with the driver’s performance or a violation committed, there is a risk that such a reduction will be deemed unjustified,” notes V. Dubovskienė.

Another problematic practice is when a company’s rules establish a broad range of possible per diem amounts, but the specific amount is then chosen at the discretion of the manager or the person in charge after the business trip. It must be clear to the employee in advance what amount of per diem they are entitled to and what factors determine that amount.

Starting in October—a simpler but more strictly defined system

 Effective October 1, the system for reducing per diem allowances is changing. Since the new rules have yet to take effect, there is no case law regarding their application at this time; however, the regulation itself sets clearer limits for employers.

In companies with a collective bargaining agreement, it will still be possible to agree on lower per diem rates, provided that the minimum limits set by law are observed.

Meanwhile, for companies without a collective bargaining agreement, the duration of the business trip will be a key factor. For shorter business trips, daily allowances cannot be reduced, while for longer ones, a reduced rate may be applied, but only in compliance with the established minimum threshold. “In a sense, the new rules will simplify matters for employers, as there will be less need to develop complex systems of criteria for reducing per diem allowances. However, this also creates a very clear obligation to decide in advance what amount of per diem allowance will be paid during a specific business trip,” explains V. Dubovskienė.

The driver must know the daily allowance amount before departing

One of the most important practical changes concerns employee notification. If an employee is to be paid a per diem rate lower than the maximum, he or she must be notified in writing of the specific amount set for that business trip before the trip begins. This means that carriers will have to abandon the practice of sending a driver on a trip without knowing the final per diem amount, which is then determined later based on the driver’s performance or other circumstances. Starting in October, a separate rule will also apply to very short first or last days of a business trip—in such cases, only a portion of the established daily allowance will be paid.

According to Langis, practical preparation should be the top priority for carriers right now. “September should be a month of preparation for transportation companies. Waiting for the first disputes or inspections to arise and only then changing internal rules would be the most costly approach. It is much safer to assess now whether the company’s documentation, the employee notification process, and actual practices will comply with the new regulations,” emphasizes AVOCAD’s managing partner.

What should carriers do right now?

According to V. Dubovskienė, in September, transportation companies should first review their current rules for paying per diems. Particular attention should be paid to vague wording that allows the amount of the per diem to be determined “at the employer’s discretion,” taking into account “the quality of work,” “violations committed,” or other subjectively assessed criteria.

At the same time, we should prepare for the new regulations that will take effect in October and establish a simple mechanism for informing drivers in writing, before they leave on a business trip, of the daily allowance amount applicable to them. “We would recommend that carriers view this change not as just another paperwork adjustment. It is a good opportunity to streamline the entire process of determining per diem allowances so that it is uniform, clear, and as independent as possible from the decisions of individual managers. The simpler and more transparent the system, the lower the risk of disputes for both the employer and the employee,” says Viktorija Dubovskienė, an attorney at AVOCAD.

The new regulations should provide carriers with greater clarity, but they will also require advance preparation. Therefore, for companies that pay per diem rates lower than the maximum, September is a good time to review their internal policies and prepare for changes effective October 1.

An unjustified fine does not necessarily have to go to court: the agency can revoke it on its own

To many, an administrative fine seems like the end of the process: the agency has issued a decision, and the individual is left with the choice of either paying the fine or appealing to court. In practice, however, there is a third option—the authority that imposed the fine, upon receiving the individual’s appeal and evaluating their arguments, may acknowledge its mistake and revoke the unfounded decision before the dispute reaches court.

According to Dainius Antanaitis, an attorney at AVOCAD, this option is important not only for the person facing administrative liability but also for the institution itself, as it helps avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and the associated financial consequences.

From the report to the fine—a few important steps

Administrative offense proceedings typically begin when an official draws up a report of an administrative offense. The case is then heard, and the person subject to administrative liability must be duly informed of the time and place of the hearing.

Both during the preparation of the report and during the examination of the case, the individual has the right to provide explanations, evidence, and arguments as to why they disagree with the violation they are accused of. If the authorities are not convinced by these, a decision is issued and an administrative penalty is imposed. “The imposition of a fine should not be a mere formality at the end of the procedure. When issuing a decision, the authority must have assessed all relevant circumstances and have sufficient grounds to establish the violation. Otherwise, an erroneous decision may result not only in its reversal in court but also in additional costs for the state,” says Dainius Antanaitis, an attorney at AVOCAD.

If the case is won, the party may claim reimbursement of court costs. Upon receiving the decision, the individual essentially has two main options: to accept the imposed penalty or to appeal it. If the dispute reaches court and the person succeeds in proving that the administrative offense proceedings against them should be terminated, they are also entitled to reimbursement of litigation costs from the state. Therefore, according to D. Antanaitis, a government agency’s decision to continue a dispute—even when the arguments presented in the complaint reveal obvious flaws in the initial ruling—can have a concrete financial cost. “If an agency realizes that its decision was unfounded, it is not rational to wait—merely as a formality—until a court confirms this. Legal proceedings cost time and money not only for the individual but ultimately for the state as well,” the attorney notes.

An agency may correct its own error

An important detail: an appeal against a decision rendered out of court in an administrative offense case must be filed with the court through the authority that issued the decision.

It is precisely at this stage that the agency has the opportunity to reassess its decision and the arguments presented by the individual. “Upon receiving a complaint, the agency is not required to automatically forward it to court and await the judge’s verdict. If the arguments in the complaint are well-founded, the agency has the option of revoking its own decision. In other words, the law provides an opportunity to correct the error even before judicial proceedings begin,” explains D. Antanaitis.

If the agency disagrees with the complaint, it is referred to a court for review. However, if it is determined that the fine was imposed unjustifiably, the error can be corrected much more easily.

 Admitting a mistake may be cheaper than defending it in court

 In Antanaitis’s view, such a procedure should encourage institutions to view complaints they receive not as a mere formality to be forwarded to the court, but as a real opportunity to reexamine the legality and validity of their decision. “An agency that realizes it imposed a fine unjustifiably can correct its own mistake—without going to court. This is not only faster for the individual but also more rational for the state itself: it avoids unnecessary litigation and a potential obligation to reimburse the individual for court costs,” summarizes AVOCAD attorney Dainius Antanaitis. Sometimes the best course of action for an agency is not to defend a decision at any cost, but to acknowledge in a timely manner that it was unfounded and to correct the error before it escalates into a legal dispute.

Ticket Validation, Inspection, and Passenger Responsibility: What Do You Need to Know When Traveling on Vilnius Public Transportation?

Today, you can purchase a public transportation ticket in Vilnius in just a few moments—using a mobile app, a contactless bank card, or another method of your choice. However, simply purchasing a ticket does not always mean that the passenger is traveling legally. Depending on how the ticket was purchased, the circumstances of its activation, the moment it becomes valid, its specified validity period, and the passenger’s actions during the trip all become important factors.

Experience shows that passengers often find themselves in situations where they have to pay a fine for their trip not because they are trying to avoid buying a ticket, but because they are unaware of or misunderstand the applicable regulations—such as when the inspection begins, whether a new ticket is required when transferring to another mode of transportation, and how a situation is assessed when a 30-minute ticket is insufficient to complete the journey due to traffic congestion or other circumstances beyond the passenger’s control. “At first glance, the public transportation ticketing system may seem very simple to a passenger—you buy a ticket and ride. However, from a legal standpoint, it is not only the fact of purchasing the ticket that matters. It also matters whether the ticket was activated properly and on time, whether it is still valid at the time of inspection, and—when using a discount—whether the passenger can prove their eligibility for it. “It is precisely these circumstances that, in practice, can determine whether a passenger’s trip will be considered lawful,” says Sandra Mickienė, a senior attorney at the AVOCAD law firm.

Where can a passenger find up-to-date information?

All individuals using public transportation in Vilnius should first familiarize themselves with the rules for using public transportation so that they can properly understand their rights and responsibilities and comply with them while traveling.

Current legislation and other documents regulating passenger transportation and passenger control are available to the public on the JUDU website under the “Legislation” section. There you can find, for example, the Rules for the Carriage of Passengers and Baggage on Vilnius City Municipality Public Transportation, the Rules for Using the “m.Ticket” App, the JUDU (Vilniečio) Card, the procedure for purchasing electronic and paper tickets and/or using and refunding funds in the e-wallet, as well as other documents.

In addition to the regulations, passengers may find it helpful to review the JUDU Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section, which provides answers to many specific questions regarding ticket purchase, activation, validity, transfers, discounts, and passenger inspections. Although the FAQ is not a legal document, this information helps provide a better understanding of how the applicable rules work in practice. “Passengers certainly don’t need to know all the legal regulations by heart, but before using a specific type of ticket, it’s worth knowing the basic terms of use. This is especially relevant when using a mobile app, discounted tickets, or planning a longer trip with transfers. The rules and practical explanations published by JUDU allow you to check in advance how you should proceed in a specific situation,” notes S. Mickienė.

Ticket Activation and Start of Passenger Inspection

One of the situations that can lead to disputes between passengers and ticket inspectors is the improper or late activation of a ticket.

According to the Vilnius City Public Transportation Rules, the start of passenger inspection is not tied to the moment when the inspector boards the vehicle or approaches a specific passenger to check their ticket. Passenger inspection begins when the vehicle approaches the entrance to a stop where inspection is conducted, or a stop without an entrance, and the driver or another authorized person activates the ticket validators installed on the vehicle.

Therefore, as soon as a passenger boards a vehicle—and before reaching the next stop where ticket inspections may take place—if they do not have a valid ticket, they must purchase one immediately and activate it properly. The ticket must be validated before the start of the ticket inspection so that, at that moment, the passenger is considered to have a valid ticket. “It is important to understand that the start of the inspection is not the moment when the passenger sees the inspector or when the inspector approaches to check a specific ticket. The rules define this moment differently—it is linked to the vehicle’s arrival at the stop where the inspection is taking place and the locking of the ticket validators. Therefore, validating the ticket only after seeing the inspector may be too late,” notes the senior lawyer at AVOCAD.

The method for activating a ticket depends on how it was purchased.

When using the JUDU / Vilniečio card, you must tap it on the ticket validator, select the ticket you want to activate, and then tap the card again to confirm your selection. If the card contains different types of tickets, the ticket validator allows you to choose which ticket to activate.

An e-ticket purchased via the mobile app is activated within the app itself by completing the activation process. The activation process takes 15 seconds; therefore, the ticket is not considered valid until the activation process is complete and the app confirms that the ticket has been activated. “These 15 seconds may seem like an insignificant technical detail, but they can become very important in the event of an inspection. Passengers who choose to use the mobile app should begin the activation process immediately upon boarding the vehicle. The ticket is considered activated only once the activation process is complete, so you should not wait until the next stop or until an inspector appears,” explains S. Mickienė.

Another option is a contactless bank card. You can use it to purchase a 60-minute ticket on Vilnius public transportation; however, discounts do not currently apply to this ticket. The ticket is purchased by tapping a physical bank card on the ticket validator or by using a phone or watch with the appropriate payment method installed. A successful purchase is confirmed by a message displayed on the ticket validator’s screen and an audible beep.

In practice, there are cases where a passenger, after boarding a public transportation vehicle, forgets to validate their ticket and does so only, for example, upon noticing a ticket inspector boarding the vehicle. In such a case, the mere fact that the ticket has already been validated by the time the ticket inspector checks the passenger does not in itself mean that the passenger had a valid ticket at the time the inspection began.

It is determined when the ticket was actually validated and whether this occurred before the start of fare inspection, i.e., before the vehicle arrived at the stop where fare inspectors conduct inspections and the driver or another authorized person locked the ticket validators.

If it is determined that the ticket was activated after the start of the inspection, it is considered that the passenger did not have a valid ticket at the time the inspection began. In such a case, the subsequent activation of the ticket does not change this fact. “In other words, during an inspection, what is assessed is not only what the inspector sees on the passenger’s phone at the exact moment of the check, but also when the ticket actually became valid. If it was activated after the inspection had already begun, the subsequent activation does not negate the fact that there was no valid ticket at the start of the inspection,” the lawyer emphasizes.

However, if it is determined that the passenger had not properly validated their ticket at the time the inspection began, they may be given the opportunity to avoid administrative liability by purchasing an inspection ticket during the inspection. An inspection ticket is intended for cases where it is determined during an inspection that a passenger is traveling without a properly validated or activated ticket.

A fare ticket costs 15 euros and can only be paid for with a bank card. Once purchased, the ticket is valid for two hours from the time of purchase, provided the passenger does not exit the vehicle.

If a passenger is unable to pay for a ticket using non-cash payment methods, the ticket inspector has the right to remove that passenger from the vehicle and, in accordance with the procedure established by law, issue a report of an administrative offense for traveling without a ticket. In such a case, the passenger is subject to the administrative liability set forth in Article 446(4) of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Lithuania (ANK)—a fine ranging from 16 to 30 euros.

Discounted ticket: simply being eligible for the discount is not enough

The Law on Transportation Benefits of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the categories of persons who are entitled to use public transportation on preferential terms and to purchase tickets at a fixed discount. These include schoolchildren and students, persons with disabilities, persons who have reached a certain age, their accompanying persons, and other groups of persons specified in the law. However, simply belonging to one of these categories is not enough. A passenger may take advantage of a transportation discount only if they have a valid document confirming their right to the relevant discount and present it upon request by a ticket inspector.

“It’s important to distinguish between two things here—a person’s actual right to a discount and the ability to prove that right during a ticket inspection. For example, a passenger may indeed be a student and be entitled to a discounted ticket, but during a ticket inspection, they must be able to verify this right with the required document. Simply explaining that the document was left at home is not enough,” says S. Mickienė. If a passenger does not have such a document—for example, if they forgot it at home—they cannot properly substantiate their right to a discounted fare during a ticket inspection. In such a case, administrative liability as provided for in Article 446 of the Code of Administrative Offenses may apply. When a passenger does in fact have an objective right to a discount and has purchased the corresponding ticket, but fails to present a document proving this during an inspection, their action is classified under Article 446, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which provides for a lighter fine—ranging from 10 to 14 euros.

When a person is not generally entitled to any discount but travels with a discounted ticket, their action is considered equivalent to traveling without a ticket under Article 446, paragraph 4, of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This carries a stricter fine—ranging from 16 to 30 euros. “These situations should not be conflated. It is one thing to be entitled to a discount but fail to present a document confirming it during an inspection, and quite another to knowingly use a discounted ticket when one is not entitled to a discount at all. The liability provided for in the legislation differs accordingly,” explains an AVOCAD attorney.

Discounted Tickets for Students: What Do You Need to Know?

Students who meet the conditions set forth in the Law on Transportation Discounts of the Republic of Lithuania are eligible for an 80 percent discount on single-ride and multi-ride tickets on Vilnius public transportation.

Students at institutions of higher education enrolled in full-time study programs are eligible for this benefit if they are citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, other European Union member states or European Economic Area states, or are family members of such citizens, and are enrolled in full-time study programs at institutions of higher education in European Union member states or European Economic Area states.

However, simply having the right to a transportation discount is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to use a discounted ticket during a trip. A passenger who has purchased and activated a discounted ticket must carry a valid document confirming their eligibility for the applicable transportation discount and, upon request by a ticket inspector during a ticket inspection, present it.

Students may prove their eligibility for the discount by presenting a student ID issued by their school or university, or a valid ISIC card, provided that the educational institution in question is located in the European Union.

In practice, there is also the case of students who are just beginning their studies and have not yet been issued a student ID. The mere fact that a student does not yet have a student ID card does not in itself prevent them from taking advantage of student transportation discounts. Generally, until October 1, it is sufficient to have a certificate issued by the educational institution confirming student status and to present it during a fare inspection.

“This is particularly relevant at the start of the new academic year. A first-year student may have been legally admitted to a program but may not yet have received their student ID card. In such cases, it is important to obtain a certificate from the educational institution in advance, which would allow the student’s status to be verified during an inspection. So it is not only the student status itself that matters, but also the ability to properly prove it,” notes S. Mickienė.

If a student is actually entitled to a transportation discount but fails to present a document confirming this entitlement during an inspection, he or she may be subject to a fine of 10 to 14 euros, as provided for in Article 446(2) of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The ticket's validity period is not the same as the duration of the trip

Another common misconception is that a ticket purchased and activated on time remains valid until the end of the trip, even if the trip itself lasts longer than the ticket’s validity period. However, a ticket’s validity period is not tied to the duration of the passenger’s trip. It is calculated from the moment the ticket is activated and depends on the type of ticket selected. For example, a 30-minute ticket is valid for 30 minutes from the moment it is activated, and a 60-minute ticket is valid for 60 minutes. “Passengers naturally sometimes expect that if they board a vehicle with a valid ticket, they will be able to ride to the final stop with it. However, the rules work differently—a ticket is valid for a specific period of time. Therefore, even if the trip is delayed due to traffic congestion or other circumstances beyond the passenger’s control, a new ticket must be purchased and activated once the old one expires,” explains S. Mickienė.

Therefore, if the trip is delayed due to traffic congestion or other reasons and the ticket expires before the passenger reaches the final stop, the mere fact that the ticket was purchased and activated on time does not entitle the passenger to continue the journey. In such a case, the passenger must purchase and properly validate a new ticket in order to continue the journey. On the other hand, the validity period of a ticket is not tied to a specific vehicle. For example, a passenger who has activated a 60-minute ticket may transfer from one bus or trolleybus to another during that time and continue using the same ticket, provided it has not expired.

“Transferring to another bus or trolleybus does not automatically mean you have to buy a new ticket. If a 30- or 60-minute ticket is still valid, the passenger may transfer to another bus or trolleybus within its validity period. The key criterion is not the number of vehicles, but whether the ticket’s validity period has expired,” the lawyer emphasizes.

What's the most important thing for a passenger to remember?

In summary, S. Mickienė highlights several of the most important rules from a practical standpoint that passengers should keep in mind:

  1. You must not only purchase a ticket but also activate it properly. This is especially important when using the mobile app, as ticket activation is not instantaneous—15 seconds must pass after confirmation of activation. Only then is the ticket considered activated, and the passenger has a valid ticket.
  2. The start of the inspection is not the moment when the inspector approaches a passenger. The start of the inspection is linked to the vehicle’s arrival at the relevant stop and the activation of the ticket validators, rather than the moment when the inspector physically boards the vehicle or approaches a specific passenger being inspected. Therefore, the ticket must be purchased and validated before the vehicle arrives at the stop where the inspection will take place and before the ticket validators are activated.
  3. When using a discounted ticket, you must have a document confirming your eligibility for the discount. Passengers eligible for a specific discount must present a document confirming this fact upon request by the ticket inspector during a ticket inspection. Failure to have or present such a document may result in a fine.
  4. When transferring to another vehicle, it is not necessary to purchase a new ticket if your current ticket is still valid. 30- and 60-minute tickets allow for unlimited transfers to another bus or trolleybus during their validity period, so simply transferring to another vehicle does not in itself mean you need to buy a new ticket.
  5. The validity period of a ticket is not tied to the actual duration of the trip. The passenger must take note of the ticket’s validity period—no grace period applies. Once the specified validity period has expired, the passenger may no longer use the same ticket solely because the trip was objectively delayed through no fault of the passenger or for reasons beyond their control. In such a case, a new ticket must be purchased and activated.

“Most of these situations arise not because passengers intentionally try to ride without a ticket, but because they are unaware of the practical rules. Therefore, the simplest way to avoid an unpleasant dispute during an inspection is to validate your ticket immediately upon boarding, keep track of its validity period, and, if you’re using a discount, always have the document confirming it on hand,” summarizes Sandra Mickienė, a senior lawyer at AVOCAD.

An employee caused damage to the company: when can the employer demand compensation?

Damaged company equipment, financial losses resulting from an employee’s mistake, the loss of a client, or the disclosure of confidential information—there are many situations in which an employee’s actions can cost a business real money. However, even when an employee’s fault seems obvious, an employer cannot always demand compensation for the full amount of the damage incurred.

Rokas Puodžiūnas, an attorney at the AVOCAD law firm, points out that under labor law, an employee’s financial liability is deliberately limited; therefore, the mere fact that the company suffered losses is not sufficient. “In business, it’s natural to think that if an employee’s mistake cost the company money, the employee should cover those losses. However, legally, the situation is not that simple. The employer bears the burden of proving not only the damage itself, but also the employee’s unlawful actions, fault, and a causal link between the employee’s actions and the resulting losses,” says the lawyer.

Losses alone are not enough

The Labor Code stipulates that each party to an employment contract must compensate the other party for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused by a breach of employment duties for which the party is at fault. In practice, the circumstances leading to damage can vary greatly: an employee may damage work equipment entrusted to them, fail to comply with occupational safety or other mandatory rules, cause financial losses through their actions, or harm the employer’s reputation. However, for an employee to be liable to compensate for damages, all the conditions for liability must be met. First, the employer must have actually suffered damages—which may consist of both direct losses and lost revenue. Furthermore, the employee’s unlawful actions or omissions must be established. For example, the employee may have violated work procedures, safety requirements, job descriptions, or the duties established by law for a specific profession.

A causal link is also required—the losses incurred by the employer must be the result of a specific violation by the employee. Finally, the employee’s fault must be established.

Furthermore, the injury must be directly related to the employment relationship and the employee’s work activities. If the injury did not occur while the employee was performing his or her job duties, compensation for it may be governed not by the Labor Code but by other legal provisions.

“The most important thing for employers to understand is that an employee’s liability is not presumed simply because the company has suffered a loss. The employer seeking compensation for damages must prove all the necessary elements of liability. If even one of these conditions is missing, the claim against the employee may be unfounded,” emphasizes R. Puodžiūnas.

Even if the employee's fault is proven, it may not be possible to recover the full amount

Another important consideration for businesses is that the Labor Code limits the amount of property damage for which an employee is liable. As a general rule, an employee must compensate for any property damage caused, but not more than three times their average monthly salary. If it is determined that the damage was caused by the employee’s gross negligence, this limit increases to six times their average monthly salary.

Gross negligence is understood as an extremely pronounced lack of care—when a person fails to exercise even the degree of caution that is clearly necessary under the specific circumstances. “This means that even in cases where an employee’s actions have caused significantly greater financial losses to the company, the employer does not automatically acquire the right to recover the entire amount from the employee. The legislature deliberately sets limits on liability, since wages are usually a person’s primary source of livelihood,” explains an AVOCAD attorney.

When might an employee be required to pay for the full amount of the damages?

However, the limitation on an employee’s liability is not absolute. The Labor Code provides for specific cases in which an employee may be required to compensate the employer for the full amount of the damage incurred. Full compensation for damages may be required when the damage was caused intentionally or when the employee’s actions constitute a criminal offense. The same rule applies when the damage is caused by an employee who is intoxicated or under the influence of narcotic, toxic, or psychotropic substances.

The employee may also be required to compensate for the full amount of damages in the event of a breach of the duty to protect confidential information or a non-compete agreement, if the employer has suffered non-pecuniary damage, or in cases where full compensation for damages is provided for in a collective bargaining agreement. “It is precisely in these situations that the financial consequences for the employee can be significantly more severe. For example, the deliberate disclosure of confidential business information to a competitor could result in losses amounting to hundreds of thousands, and the standard cap of three or six times the average salary would not necessarily protect the employee in such a case,” notes R. Puodžiūnas.

If an employee causes damage to a customer, the company may be the first to be held liable

Situations in which an employee’s actions cause damage not to the employer itself, but to a client, partner, or other third party, are also relevant to business. In such cases, the employer is generally required to compensate the affected party for the damage. However, after compensating for the damage caused by the employee, the employer may acquire a right of recourse against the employee at fault for the damage. In such cases, the conditions and limits of the employee’s liability as set forth in the Labor Code are taken into account.“This is particularly relevant for employers in operations where employees work directly with clients’ property, operate vehicles, make financial decisions, or perform other actions where mistakes could result in losses that the company itself would bear first. Therefore, it is important not only to properly regulate employees’ duties but also to ensure that work processes, responsibilities, and internal rules are clearly documented,” says R. Puodžiūnas, a lawyer at AVOCAD.

An employer cannot simply decide to deduct the full amount of the loss from an employee's salary

In practice, the issue of recovering damages is also important. The employee and the employer may first agree, by mutual consent, on the amount, procedure, and deadlines for compensation for damages. In certain cases, the employer may issue a written order to deduct the damages from the employee’s wages; however, the Labor Code also imposes specific restrictions on this procedure. If the dispute cannot be resolved through an agreement or if a larger amount is claimed, the employer may have to turn to the authorities that handle labor disputes. Therefore, the mere fact that the employer has calculated the damages caused by the employee does not, in and of itself, grant the employer the right to unilaterally deduct the full amount from the employee’s wages.

“I would recommend that employers avoid the ‘let’s deduct first, then figure it out later’ approach. Before making a decision on recovering damages, it is essential to assess the basis for the employee’s liability, the limits of that liability, and the recovery procedure itself. A procedural error can lead to an additional labor dispute even when the employee did in fact contribute to the damage,” notes an AVOCAD attorney.

According to R. Puodžiūnas, the restrictions set forth in the Labor Code do not mean that an employee can avoid liability for his or her actions. They are intended to maintain a balance between the employer’s right to recover losses incurred due to the employee’s fault and the protection of the employee, as the economically weaker party in the employment relationship. “Each such case must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a company has suffered significant damage, before making a claim against the employee, it is advisable to first gather evidence, accurately calculate the losses, and assess what limit of liability applies in the specific case. And for an employee who has received a claim for a large sum, it is worth verifying whether the employer’s claim actually meets the conditions set forth in the Labor Code,” summarizes AVOCAD attorney Rokas Puodžiūnas.