Is it still possible in Lithuania to sell a car that doesn’t belong to you? It turns out—yes. However, such stories rarely have a happy ending. “It came as a complete surprise to the customer—the car was purchased, registered in Lithuania, and there were no obstacles. However, later, during an inspection, the vehicle was impounded because it was discovered in Belgium that it was linked to a bankruptcy proceeding and claims by the rightful owner,” explains Mantas Baigys, an attorney at AVOCAD.
This situation was recently examined by the Utena District Court, which declared the contract for the sale of an Audi vehicle invalid. The court found that the seller did not have ownership rights to the vehicle sold—the car was the subject of an international search and was to be returned to its rightful owner.
As a result, the buyer was left without a car and faced additional expenses.
The dispute arose after a car purchased in Lithuania and registered in the buyer’s name without any issues was impounded in Latvia a few months later. During a border check, it was discovered that the vehicle had been entered into the Schengen Information System as wanted at the request of Belgium, and that the car was to be confiscated and returned to its rightful owner.
As noted by Mantas Baigys, the attorney who represented the client in the case, this case may seem paradoxical at first glance: the buyer purchased the car through the usual channels, and the car was registered in Lithuania, but it later turned out that the legal situation was entirely different.
According to the case file, the plaintiff purchased the vehicle from a Lithuanian company, which had in turn bought the car in Germany from a private individual. Although the seller claimed to have acted in good faith and relied on the registration documents provided to her, the court thoroughly assessed the circumstances regarding the car’s origin and documentation. Of particular significance was the fact that the Belgian registration certificate clearly stated: this document does not confirm ownership, and the vehicle’s owner listed therein was not the individual who sold the car, but a legitimate Belgian company.
The court held that the mere transfer of the registration certificate is not sufficient evidence that the seller had ownership of the vehicle or the right to transfer it. Furthermore, a higher standard of care and diligence applies to a businessperson engaged in the professional sale of automobiles. In the court’s view, by failing to request additional documents confirming ownership or authorization, the seller assumed the risk that she would later be unable to substantiate her right to dispose of the car. “One of the key points in this case was that the seller cannot rely solely on the formal possession of documents. If the document itself clearly states that it does not confirm ownership, the seller must take additional steps to verify who the actual owner is and on what basis the car is being sold,” comments the AVOCAD attorney.
The court emphasized that, under the Civil Code, the seller has a mandatory obligation to confirm that the item being sold is owned by him and that no third parties have any rights or claims to it. This obligation is not merely a formality—a breach of it may render the transaction void. In the case at hand, the court found that the defendant was not the owner of the car and had no right to sell it; therefore, the contract was declared null and void from the moment of its conclusion.
Another key aspect of the case was the issue of restitution. Since the car had already been impounded in Latvia and was being held there pending transfer to its rightful owner, its return to the seller was objectively no longer possible. Therefore, the court ordered unilateral restitution—requiring the seller to refund the buyer the full purchase price paid for the car.
In addition, the court awarded the buyer compensation for a portion of the losses incurred. These included expenses for legal assistance in Latvia, registration and pollution taxes, a certificate from Regitra, and a portion of the insurance costs following the impoundment of the vehicle. In total, the buyer was awarded €2,122.87 in compensation for losses. The court also awarded more than €9,600 in litigation costs.
“The man was effectively left without a car and with additional expenses incurred while defending his rights. The court clearly stated: if the seller did not have the right to sell the item, the buyer cannot be made to bear the risk of being left without a car,” says attorney M. Baigys.
This decision is significant not only for the parties to this specific case, but also for the broader used car market. It serves as a reminder that the registration of a vehicle or its formal entry in the registry does not in itself create a right of ownership and does not eliminate risk if the chain of title itself is flawed. The court rejected the argument that the mere fact that the car could be registered in Lithuania implies a lawful transfer of ownership. On the contrary, it was clearly emphasized that “Regitra” does not assess the legality of the grounds for vehicle ownership, and registration is merely one piece of evidence that may be rebutted by other data.
According to Mantas Baigys, the practical lesson from this case is very clear: vehicle sellers must carefully verify not only the vehicle’s technical and registration history, but also the basis for the transfer of ownership itself. “This is a clear signal to the market: in the used car trade, it is not enough to rely on the fact that the documents appear to be in order or that the car has been successfully registered. You need to verify whether the seller actually has the right to transfer ownership. Otherwise, the seller may bear all the risk,” he notes.
