Category: Environmental and Energy Law

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.

Who is responsible when a dog bites a person? Is it enough to say "it ran away by itself"? Or is it the actual possession of the animal that is more important in court than ownership? According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, careless behaviour or a lack of security can lead to criminal liability.

In Lithuania, the rules for keeping animals are strictly regulated by the Law on Animal Welfare and Protection of the Republic of Lithuania, which sets out how state and municipal authorities, as well as animal keepers themselves, have to ensure the well-being of pets and the safety of people. The law establishes general rights and obligations for animal owners - for example, that animals must not pose a threat to the life, health or property of humans or other animals. On the basis of this law and the functions entrusted to the State Food and Veterinary Office, a description of the procedure for keeping animals in residential areas has been drawn up. On the basis of this, the mayors of the municipalities approve specific rules on the keeping of animals in their municipal territory. "A person who violates these rules and causes injury to another person as a result of an animal may be criminally liable for bodily harm. In such cases, it is usually negligence - criminal negligence in failing to take the necessary safety precautions - that is at issue," says the lawyer.

As with other crimes of bodily injury, according to AVOCAD lawyer Domantas Velykis, the offence is qualified according to the extent and consequences of the injuries. Most of these cases fall under the category of negligent infliction of minor bodily harm, and the following is a discussion of the elements of this crime and the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL).

The lawyer points out that the qualification of the offence does not depend on whether the person is the owner of the dog, but only on whether he is the actual keeper of the dog. What is relevant is the fact of the injury itself, which is caused by the negligent behaviour of improper keeping of the animal. Therefore, for criminal liability, it is sufficient to prove the actual ownership or possession of the dog. Anyone who negligently injures or maims a person, provided that the injury or maiming results in partial incapacity for work or a prolonged illness, but does not have serious consequences, is liable to criminal prosecution. The offence in question is committed only with negligence.

Under the Criminal Code, criminal negligence means that a person:

• did not foresee that his actions or omissions could lead to harmful consequences, such as that the person does not realise that he is violating generally accepted rules of care or special requirements for carrying out work and therefore does not foresee that his actions (acts or omissions) could lead to dangerous consequences, in this case, injury to a person;

• could and should have foreseen the consequences of the act, given the circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the person concerned - the ability to foresee the consequences is a subjective criterion of criminal negligence, which determines the ability of a person with a relevant duty to foresee the dangerous consequences of his or her actions in a particular situation. The ability to foresee the consequences is an objective criterion of criminal negligence, which establishes the existence of a duty of care when committing the act in question.

"In other words, the ability and capacity to foresee the consequences characterises a person's duty of care to foresee potentially dangerous consequences," says the lawyer.

In a landmark Supreme Court case, a dog owner failed to ensure that two Rottweiler mixes she kept would not pose a threat to others, in breach of legal requirements. Knowing that a child was nearby, she opened the aviary and let the dogs out in the yard. One of the dogs attacked the minor, causing minor injuries. Although the keeper argued that she could not have foreseen this behaviour, the Court notes that she should and could have foreseen it, knowing that the child, a stranger to the dogs, would be attacked and injured by the dogs, which were defending their territory from unauthorised persons, when she opened the car door to enter the yard. Therefore, the keeper should have taken additional precautions (e.g. locking the car door or creating a barrier to access to the yard).

"In another case, the defendant was acquitted because the dog was locked in a room and only escaped when the guest opened the door - in this case, the owner had taken reasonable security measures," Domantas Velykis says, summarising the case law. In another case, a dog owner was convicted for a dog that broke loose from a chain that was too loose and ran into a public road, biting a woman and her pet. The Supreme Court stressed that it is not enough to tether a dog if the strength of the chain or collar is not ensured.

Thus, according to AVOCAD's lawyer, an animal keeper has a duty not only to take care of the welfare of his or her pet, but also to ensure that the pet does not cause danger or harm to third parties. Negligent behaviour or failure to ensure safety can lead to criminal liability under the Criminal Code.