Category: Information

Debt in business: how to stay out of debt and get your money back on time 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

The construction sector in Lithuania has not lost its "leading" position in terms of indebtedness and bankruptcy risk for years. Trade, transport and manufacturing companies, which also have a high level of overdue debts, are following behind. Debt is a persistent problem in business, and not only in vulnerable sectors. Every company, regardless of the nature of its business, can face insolvent partners or customers. The question is therefore "how to recover debts efficiently and avoid mistakes?" is becoming a crucial issue for everyone.

According to Kamilė Šemeklytė, Associate at AVOCAD, the problem of debt in business is not only financial, but also strategic. "Every day overdue reduces the likelihood of actually recovering money. Effective debt collection is a process in which choosing the right actions at the right time is crucial," the lawyer emphasises.

She said that it is crucial for all businesses to keep their books up to date and to take immediate action in the event of overdue debts from debtors, without expecting the debtor to take action to settle the debt once it is overdue. It is recommended that, whether the overdue obligation is large or relatively small, the debtor should be contacted promptly in writing reminding him of the overdue obligation and inviting him to honour it.

Ideally, the debtor will immediately honour the overdue obligation and the failure to pay on time was just an accounting error or some other human misunderstanding. In this case, the creditor recovers the money without further loss.

The lawyer also points to two other possible scenarios that seem less favourable at first glance but still help the creditor: the debtor can explain the reasons for the delay and offer solutions, or he can not react at all and ignore the reminders. In both cases, the creditor knows what to expect: either a postponement or rescheduling of the debt can be negotiated, or the creditor will have to prepare for legal proceedings.

Importantly, in either case, the material collected can become evidence in court. If the debtor is liable, it is written proof of his acknowledgement of the debt or the reasons given. If the debtor does not respond, it is evidence of dishonesty and non-cooperation, which can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case.

The question often arises - what is the benefit to the creditor of agreeing to defer or reschedule a debt?

At first glance, it seems that only the debtor wins in this case. But it is important to understand that a written agreement is very strong evidence. If the debtor still defaults later on, you will no longer have to prove in court that the debt exists - the signed document itself will prove it. This makes the process much quicker and simpler.

In addition, the parties may agree on additional safeguards. For example, by providing for the agreement to be approved by a court. If such a court-approved agreement contains a clause stating that failure to comply with the agreed standstill arrangement will entitle the creditor to apply to the court for a writ of execution and, if one is issued, to go directly to the bailiff to enforce the debt. This means that the bailiff could be contacted immediately, bypassing the lengthy court process. The result is time and cost savings.

Therefore, according to AVOCAD's lawyer, although court often seems to be the quickest way, practice shows the opposite: doing your "homework" before the court proceedings can not only help you to recover the debt faster, but also to avoid additional losses. Timely action is the key to protecting a company's finances and ensuring effective debt recovery.

 

Climbed into a supermarket sign - who would respond if there was an accident?

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

The dangerous adventure of Pauliaus Samoška, who surprised many by climbing a signboard of a shopping centre building, ended successfully. But not all such adventures succeed. Lawyers remind us that such careless actions can lead to risks to life and serious injuries, which are the reason why the victims themselves go to court and claim compensation for material and non-material damages from the owner of the building.

According to AVOCAD attorney-at-law Mantas Baigis, in Lithuania the liability of the owner of buildings is strictly regulated by legislation, which provides that the owner (manager) of these objects must compensate for the damage caused by the collapse of buildings, structures, equipment or other constructions, including roads, or by other defects thereof, unless he/she proves that exceptions provided for in the legislation are made - that the damage is caused by an act of God or the wilfulness or gross negligence of the injured party.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania has consistently held that the general rule is that the owner of a building, i.e. the person who owns the building, is liable for the damage caused by defects in the building without fault. The Court has clarified that the legislation establishes 'strict liability', i.e. liability without fault, which means that the application of this rule requires the establishment of the fact of possession of the structure referred to in the law which has collapsed or is otherwise defective, of the causing of the damage to the person, which is also deemed to be an unlawful act, and of the causal link between the collapse of the structure or other defects and the damage caused, without, however, establishing the fault of the person in charge. Owners of buildings must bear the risk and pay for the damage caused, even if they have taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the damage from occurring, but it has occurred nonetheless.

Explaining how the above regulation works in practice, Mantas Baigys notes that in one civil case it was established that a person attempted to climb onto a locked balcony of a building through a nearby window, and eventually fell out of the balcony, sustaining serious injuries - fractures of the arms, a bruised head, a broken leg, and bruising of internal organs.

The owner of the building argued in the case that the victim was at fault because he had taken all the necessary safety precautions, even removing the handles from the balcony door to prevent anyone from entering this dangerous part of the building. In contrast, the victim argued that it was the property owner who was negligent, failed to take proper care of his property, failed to clean the dangerous balcony and directly contributed to the accident.

In the end, according to the lawyer, the long-running dispute was settled and it was found that the victim, aware that the door to the balcony was locked and that direct access to the balcony was not possible, was extremely careless in climbing out of the window of an adjacent room and was responsible for the damage.

"In the case of Paulius Samoška, if someone tried to replicate this extremely dangerous action and, for example, fell while climbing the structure (for example, if the structure was not designed to withstand the climb), each circumstance would have to be assessed on an individual basis," commented the AVOCAD lawyer.

For example, although access to the structure was objectively difficult, and Paul had to use a ladder as high as 5 metres, it was not locked. Nor, as the recording states, are there any warning signs stating that climbing is prohibited, so that Paul reasonably believed, as he states, that climbing was permitted.

The courts hearing the case would therefore have a lot of work to do in assessing these and other circumstances, such as whether the owner of the building did everything possible to prevent the accident and whether he or she exercised due care. The conduct of the victim would also have to be assessed in the same way. "In this case, Paul Samoška deliberately took the extremely risky step of climbing the structure without any equipment or permission. If another person were to do the same, it is likely that the court would find it difficult to ignore such obvious negligence. Such behaviour becomes a strong argument that could in principle exclude the liability of the owner of the structure," says AVOCAD's lawyer.

 

Access to another's property without paying rent: usufruct

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Imagine being able to legally use someone else's property - to generate income, produce or even rent - without paying a penny yourself. Sound like a rental agreement? Not quite. The Civil Code provides for a far more interesting and less frequently mentioned mechanism : usufruct.

A usufruct is a right in rem granted for the lifetime of a person or for a specific period of time (no longer than the usufructuary's lifetime). It allows you to use and benefit from another's property. It is usually established in order to ensure the maintenance of a particular person or to improve his/her living conditions.

According to Rokas Puodžiūnas, a lawyer at AVOCAD, the uniqueness of this right is that it is linked not to the owner, but to the object itself. This means that even if the owner changes, the usufruct does not change - unlike in ordinary contractual relationships.

How is usufruct created?

According to the lawyer, usufruct can cover both movable and immovable property. This right can arise in three ways: by law, by court decision or by transaction.

An example of a statutory usufruct is the property of minor children. "Although parents do not have a property right over their children's property, they need a legal basis to manage that property. That is why the law provides that in such cases parents act as usufructuaries - they manage their children's property with usufruct rights, even though they do not own it as owners themselves", says Rokas Puodžiūnas.

A usufruct can also be established by a court decision, usually in the context of family law. For example, in the event of a divorce, the court may grant the right to use the living space to the spouse with whom the minor children are staying, even if the other spouse owns the space.

However, usufruct is most often created by a transaction - a contract or a will. It can only be established by the owner of the property. In the case of immovable property, the contract must be notarised and the rights and obligations arise only when the usufruct is registered in the public register. In the case of movable objects, where registration is not compulsory, the usufruct comes into force from the moment of transfer of the object itself.

Rights and obligations of the usufructuary

The most important right of a usufructuary is to use and benefit from the object: fruit, produce or income. The specific rights are defined by the usufruct itself, but in the absence of this, the usufructuary is presumed to use the object as a careful owner would. "Although he cannot transfer the usufruct itself to another person, he may allow a third party to use the object - for example, to rent it out. In such a case, any income generated belongs to the usufructuary. It also gives the usufructuary the right to demand the fulfilment of obligations related to the usufruct object and to receive the corresponding payments," emphasises Rokas Puodžiūnas.

Lawyers point out that rights come with responsibilities. The usufructuary must use the property responsibly, ensure its preservation and, if necessary, carry out routine repairs. He must pay taxes and other charges relating to the object in proportion to the benefit he receives, unless the law or a contract provides otherwise. He must also notify the owner of any damage to the object, of the need for major improvements or repairs, of the need to protect the property from danger and to inform him if third parties assert rights over the object. The usufructuary must pay the owner once a year for the use of the object and, in certain cases, must insure the object.

AVOCAD's lawyer stresses that the usufructuary only pays taxes that are directly related to the property. This is also confirmed by case law. In one case, the owner asked for the abolition of a usufruct because the usufructuary had not paid for the management and maintenance of the apartment and the common areas. "However, the court clarified that such costs are not directly related to the apartment as the object of the usufruct, and are therefore the responsibility of the owner, not the usufructuary," Rokas Puodžiūnas notes.

End of usufruct

Like any right, usufruct is not forever. It can end on various grounds, both by the will of the usufructuary and by objective circumstances. The simplest case is when the usufructuary waives the right in writing, but such a waiver is valid only for the benefit of the owner. The usufruct also terminates automatically upon the death of the usufructuary, as the right is not heritable, or upon the dissolution of the legal person, if the right was created for it. There is also a time limit for legal persons: the usufruct is no longer valid after thirty years.

Sometimes the end of the usufruct is linked to a specific term or condition. For example, one parent may be granted usufruct in the other parent's home until the child reaches the age of eighteen - at the age of majority, this right automatically ends. It also ends if the usufructuary becomes the owner of the object, if the object dies or if it deteriorates to such an extent that it can no longer be used for its intended purpose.

The law also sets limitation periods. If the usufructuary does not use the movable object for three years or the immovable object for ten years, the usufruct ends automatically. Furthermore, usufruct can also be revoked by a court decision if the grounds for doing so are provided for by law.

AVOCAD's lawyer also points out that a court decision can only abolish usufruct where the law so provides. When this right ends, the usufructuary is obliged to return the object to the owner in the same condition as when it was received, taking into account normal wear and tear, unless otherwise agreed at the time of the usufruct. If the usufructuary has improved the object, he may retain those parts of the improvement which can be separated without causing damage. If the improvements are inseparable, the usufructuary may claim reimbursement of their cost, but only to the extent of the increase in the value of the thing and only if the improvements were made with the consent of the owner. If the usufruct has been registered, its termination is also linked to the moment of deregistration.

In summary, usufruct is a special property right that allows you to use someone else's property legally and free of charge. It is linked to the object itself, so that if the owner changes hands, the right remains in force. Usually, usufruct is established by the will of the owner in order to ensure the needs or well-being of a neighbour. "This overlooked option of the Civil Code can be a wise decision when planning a family estate or ensuring the quality of life of a loved one", says Rokas Puodžiūnas. Therefore, it is always worth consulting a lawyer before making a decision on usufruct, as this unique right will become a reliable tool rather than a problem.

 

 

Court clarifies which email is most important for serving documents

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Nowadays, when the majority of procedural documents are sent electronically, the question arises: which email address is considered to be the correct one for service of documents - the one you have indicated in the "Mano VMI" system or the one you have provided to the authority in the particular case? The Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL) has recently dealt with a case in which this dilemma has become a fundamental issue and has provided an interpretation. According to lawyers, it is important for everyone to know.

"In order for a person to be able to actually exercise his or her rights in administrative proceedings, it is essential that procedural documents - such as a report on an administrative offence - are properly served on him or her," says Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at the law firm AVOCAD . The rights of a person subject to administrative liability are set out in the Code of Administrative Offences. These include the right to have access to the case file, to participate in the proceedings and provide explanations, to submit necessary documents and items in writing or orally, to be assisted by a lawyer, and to appeal against decisions taken.

According to the procedure for service of procedural documents (e.g. summonses), documents may be sent via the National Electronic Mail System, by e-mail, by other electronic means, or by registered mail. Documents may be sent by e-mail when the address is indicated in the 'Population Register' or in other public information systems used for electronic services. If there is no such address, documents may be sent by e-mail only if the person himself or herself declares that he or she wishes to receive the documents in this way.

However, in order to use the electronic services of "Mano VMI" (e.g. to submit documents, purchase or renew business licenses, register as a VAT payer, recover overpayments, etc.), it is necessary to register in this system. The first time you log in, you will need to provide your email address. A confirmation link will be sent to your email address, which must be activated. If the address is not validated, you will not be able to log in to the system.

According to lawyer Domantas Velykis, the e-mail address confirmed in this way is saved in the "Mano VMI" system and used to send notifications and documents. Importantly, such an address also complies with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offences, i.e. it is considered to be an official address provided in the state information system for receiving electronic services.

Nowadays, many people have several e-mail addresses, so the question arises - which address is considered to be appropriate for the submission of procedural documents in an administrative offence case: the one indicated in the Mano VMI system or the one that the person has indicated to the institution?

Supreme Court of Lithuania: "it is important to assess the actual use of email"

This situation was recently examined by the Supreme Court of Lithuania. The courts of first and appeal instance ruled that the institution had violated the rights of the person because it had not sent the documents to the e-mail address that the person had provided to the institution, but to the address confirmed and used in the "Mano VMI" system.

However, the Court of Cassation has stressed that it is important to assess not only the formal indication of the details, but also the actual use of the email. If a person requests documents to be sent to one address but actually uses another, it is for the institution to determine which address is actually available. In the absence of such a finding, the procedural documents should be sent by other alternative methods provided for in the law, such as registered mail.

Commenting on such case law, Domantas Velykis, lawyer at AVOCAD, summarises that the e-mail address indicated and confirmed in the Mano VMI system may be considered as a proper address for service of procedural documents, even if the person has indicated a different e-mail address to the institution - but only if it is proven that the documents actually reach the person at this address.

He also points out that it is the user's responsibility to ensure that the contact details provided in their account are accurate and up to date. "Therefore, periodically check that the email address provided in this system is correct and actively used to avoid legal misunderstandings and possible negative consequences," the lawyer advises.

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

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

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

LKL case - voltage indicator for the whole system

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

The Authority says one thing and does another

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

Where the law ends, interpretations begin

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

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

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

Recommendations - after the fact, responsibilities - whenever

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

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

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

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

Business is responsible even for what is legal

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

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

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

Law must be predictable, not repressive

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

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

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

Does a plane crash always exempt airlines from liability? 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

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

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

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

When is a failure considered an "extraordinary circumstance"?

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

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

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

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

 

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

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

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

Primary Disseminator - the first step

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where and how to apply to Google

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

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

What to do if Google rejects your request

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Selling on Instagram or TikTok? You're already an entrepreneur - even if you don't think so yourself 

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

Social networks have become more than just a place to share photos - they are the new shop window. Increasingly, products are offered on Instagram, TikTok or Facebook, and orders go through messages. Simple, fast and no headache of setting up an e-shop. But there's a "but": if you're selling, it's a business. And there are clear rules for business. What are they? - Egidijus Kieras, attorney at AVOCAD, answers .

Not registered? That doesn't mean you're not an entrepreneur

According to the lawyer, if you offer goods or services on a regular basis, advertise, accept payments and ask your customers for a delivery address, you are a businessman. It doesn't matter whether you are trading as a small partnership, a limited liability company or as a natural person. If you meet the criteria of an entrepreneur, you are also subject to the requirements.

What is a must for every social media marketer?

Whether you find customers through Reels or Story, you need to ensure compliance with the law, for example:

  • Before the product is sold, provide the consumer with information about the product and its price,
  • who you are (name, title, contacts),
  • explain how the consumer can return the goods,
  • exercising the buyer's right to withdraw from the purchase within 14 days (in the case of a non-food item or individual product)
  • have at least a simple privacy policy if you collect any information (e.g. email, address);
  • inform you about the dispute resolution procedure.

Lawyer Egidijus Kieras stresses that even through Instagram posts, it must be clear to the buyer what they are buying, from whom and under what conditions.

Under the EU Consumer Rights Directive and Lithuanian law, e-commerce on social networks is not "special" - it is subject to the same rules as any other e-shop. And if you're still collecting customer names, phone numbers or addresses, welcome to GDPR territory.

"The Data Protection Inspectorate has repeatedly fined small businesses for collecting customer information without any clear policy or consent. And no, 'send us a message' is not a sufficient form of consent or contract," says the lawyer.

What are the real risks?

Sellers often say: "I'm too small to be of interest." But according to Kier, any dissatisfied buyer can complain. This could lead to an inspection by the Consumer Rights Protection Authority, possible fines or even blocking of the account for violations. You may also have to answer personally if you are not a legal entity.

Taxes are another risk. If you haven't registered your business, you could also face the IRS.

"Doing business through social networks is not a 'grey area'. The law has long since caught up with practice. The sooner you realise this, the less likely you are to move from consumer comments to the eyes of the Consumer Protection Authority and the Tax Inspectorate," warns an AVOCAD lawyer.

The question is - what if I just sell clothes on Vinted? Is that also considered a business?

The answer depends on the scope and systematicity. According to Egidijus Kieras, the one-off sale of a second-hand jumper is not really a commercial activity. However, if you sell a lot, on a regular basis and for profit, it can already be considered a business. In this case, there is an obligation to register the activity, to comply with consumer protection and data processing rules, and to declare income.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that even a natural person can be considered a "seller" if he or she regularly sells goods via an online platform, even if they are second-hand. Therefore, it is not what you sell, but how often and for what purpose.

 

AVOCAD becomes legal partner of Jonava basketball club CBet

Posted on by avocad_bxgv12hf

AVOCAD has become the official legal partner of Jonava basketball club CBet. The aim is to strengthen the legal basis of the club's activities and contribute to the growth of the organisation.

"Basketball in Lithuania is more than a game. It is a social phenomenon with its own economics, international aspects and legal subtleties. As a team of lawyers, we are highly motivated to be a part of this process and to contribute to one of the most growing and dynamic sports organisations in Lithuania," says Egidijus Langys, Managing Partner of the firm.

Vaidas Vaškevičius, President of Jonava Basketball Club, emphasised that modern basketball requires not only a strong sports team, but also a professional backbone structure. "It's not just a sport. It is a huge system, which - from player contracts to sponsorship or international cooperation - needs a clear legal basis. We are delighted that our club will now be represented by an experienced law firm that is close to both the sport and a broad approach to the law," noted the club's President.

He said that the spectrum of legal issues in the activities of basketball clubs is very broad and dynamic. From player contracts, coaches' contracts, licensing, to intellectual property protection, use of trademarks, sponsorship agreements or international transfer rules, every aspect requires precision and professionalism.

"In this sector, legal assistance becomes particularly important when dealing with disputes with players or agents, when participating in FIBA or LKL regulatory processes, or simply when managing a growing organisation. The involvement of lawyers ensures that the club can concentrate on the game and not on the legal rebus," said Langys when signing the cooperation agreement.

Jonava CBet is a consistently growing club. In the 2024-2025 Betsafe-LKL season, the team is demonstrating a stable, ambitious and competitive game - the team is currently among the four strongest teams in the league.