Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Available documents (20)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Lithuania / 13 June 2019 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / Serbijos Respublikos privatizavimo ginčų sprendimo agentūra v. UAB „Arvi“ ir ko, UAB „SANITEX“ and BAB „Univerzal Holding“ a.d. Beograd / e3K-3-182-969/2019
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 13 June 2019 Parties Serbijos Respublikos privatizavimo ginčų sprendimo agentūra v. UAB „Arvi“ ir ko, UAB „SANITEX“ and BAB „Univerzal Holding“ a.d. Beograd Case number e3K-3-182-969/2019 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Languages Lithuanian reverses : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5995&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 27 September 2018 Parties Serbijos Respublikos privatizavimo ginčų sprendimo agentūra v. akcinė bendrovė įmonių grupė „Alita“ Case number e3K-3-336-611/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VI Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Languages Lithuanian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5221&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 15 June 2017 Parties “Suraleb, INC.” v. AAB “Minsko traktoriu gamykla” Case number 3K-3-267-611/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3685&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 06 October 2016 Parties JP SRBIJAGAS v. Heimdal Enterprises LTD, UAB ARVI ir Ko Case number 3K-3-407-916/2016 Applicable NYC Provisions VI Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3672&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 23 October 2015 Parties OAO Gazprom v. Republic of Lithuania Case number 3K-7-458-701/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3671&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 25 September 2015 Parties Interperformances Inc. v. R. J. Case number 3K-3-483-421/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3670&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 22 May 2015 Parties UAB Molesta v. UAB Eicore Case number 3K-3-320-611/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/index.html (public Lithuanian law database)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3674&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 27 June 2014 Parties L. B. v. Republic of Lithuania Case number 3K-3-363/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3669&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 19 May 2014 Parties O. B., V. S. v. Ballsbridge Advisory Ltd Case number 3K-3-289/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/index.html (public Lithuanian law database)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3673&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 22 November 2013 Parties ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB) v. BUAB Kruonio hidroakumuliacines elektrines statyba Case number 3K-3-593/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(3) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3668&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 10 October 2013 Parties OAO Gazprom v. Republic of Lithuania Case number 3K-7-326/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3667&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 02 October 2013 Parties Flight Test Aerospace INC v. UAB AK Aviabaltika Case number 3K-3-431/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3666&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 28 June 2013 Parties UAB Abipa Logistics v. RAB Kutter Case number 3K-7-181/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3665&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 26 June 2012 Parties UAB „Luksora“, A.L. v. N. V. K., I. V. K. and R. W. A. v. K. Case number 3K-3-353/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary The CEO of UAB „Luksora” (“Luksora”) (“A.L.”) and N. V. K., I. V. K. R. W. A. v. K. entered into a shareholders agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and the shareholders initiated an investigation into the management activities of A.L. before the Vilnius district court. A.L. and Luksora objected to the jurisdiction of the Vilnius district court on the basis of the arbitration agreement contained in the shareholders’ agreement. The Vilnius district court dismissed A.L.’s objections, who then appealed to the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania), which also dismissed the objections, both holding that the dispute was non-arbitrable under Lithuanian law. A.L. appealed from the decision before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the dispute was non-arbitrable under Lithuanian law. After referring to Article II(1) NYC, it concluded that an investigation into the activities of a legal person cannot be referred to arbitration. It reasoned that an investigation is an instrument protecting the public interest, and that it could not be ensured that the public interest would be protected in arbitration proceedings in the same manner as a court. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1441&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 02 May 2012 Parties UAB „Tarptautinės statybos korporacija“ v. ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB). Case number 3K-3-199/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary UAB „Tarptautinės statybos korporacija“(“Statybos korporacija”) entered in a construction contract with ALSTOM Power Sweden Aktienbolag (AB) (“Alstom”), which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden. Both parties also entered into other agreements concerning related works, which did not provide for arbitration. A dispute arose and Statybos korporacija brought a claim against Alstom before the Vilnius district court. Alstom objected to the jurisdiction of the local court, arguing that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the construction contract. The Vilnius district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and referred the parties to arbitration. Statybos korporacija appealed, arguing that the dispute fell outside the scope of the construction contract and that the Lithuanian courts therefore had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Alstom objected to the jurisdiction of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania) on the basis of Article II(3) NYC, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration pursuant to arbitration clause contained in the construction contract. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas overturned the decision of the Vilnius district court, finding that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration agreement. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) held that it was not possible to rule on whether the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement according to the NYC, and remanded the case to the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas for reexamination. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas stated that Article II(3) NYC can only be applied to disputes arising from an agreement containing an arbitration clause and that the NYC would not apply where the applicant's claim is based on a contract that does not contain an arbitration agreement. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas held that in the present case, it was not clear whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1448&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 04 November 2011 Parties K.M. v. UAB „A. Sabonio Žalgirio krepšinio centras“ Case number 3K-3-411/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary K.M., a basketball player, entered into a contract with UAB „A. Sabonio Žalgirio krepšinio centras“ (“Sabonio centras”), a basketball club, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose concerning termination of the contract and K.M. initiated arbitration proceedings against Sabonio centras, obtaining a favorable award, which it then sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Sabonio centras objected to the request based on Article V(2)(b) NYC, arguing that the award was contrary to public policy. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas dismissed the objection and granted recognition and enforcement of the award. Sabonio centras appealed to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas affirmed the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, holding that the award did not violate Article V(2)(b) NYC. It noted that the concept of “public policy” should not be interpreted to mean “national public policy” as such an interpretation would contradict the purpose of the NYC. It further noted that the concept of “public policy” had to be interpreted in an international context otherwise the concept of public policy in international commercial arbitration would depend on the jurisdiction before which recognition and enforcement of the award is sought. Lastly, it found that parties who opted for arbitration have reasonable expectations of the factors that may affect the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award pursuant to the NYC. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1442&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 10 November 2008 Parties Belaja Rus v. Westintorg Corp. Case number 3K-3-562/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary Belaja Rus (“Belaja”) entered into an agreement with Westintorg Corp (“Westintorg”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Belaja obtained a favorable arbitral award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Westintorg challenged the recognition and enforcement of the award on the basis of Article V(2)(b) NYC, arguing that the award violated Lithuanian public policy as the tribunal had awarded punitive damages to Belaja. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas found in favor of the Belaja and Westintorg appealed. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) granted enforcement only to part of the award, applying Article V(2)(b) NYC. After noting that an unreasonable and disproportionately high interest rate in the award could amount to a violation of Lithuanian public policy, it held that, in the present case, the final amount of interest was disproportionate and therefore against Lithuanian public policy. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1444&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 20 October 2008 Parties AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“, AB “Geonafta” v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Case number 3K-3-510/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary AB „Svenska Petroleum Exploration“ (“Svenska”), AB “Geonafta” (“Geonafta”) entered into an agreement with the Republic of Lithuania (“Republic of Lithuania”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and an award was rendered in favor of Svenska and Geonafta, against the Republic of Lithuania, which Svenska and Geonafta sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). The Republic of Lithuania objected to the enforcement on the grounds of Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, while at the same time challenging the validity of the contract (including the arbitration clause contained therein) in separate proceedings before the Kretinga district court. In the enforcement proceeding, the Republic of Lithuania argued that the contract breached Lithuanian public policy and that the proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award should be suspended pending the proceedings before the Kretinga district court. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas suspended the enforcement proceeding, and Svenska and Geonafta appealed to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas upheld the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, suspending the enforcement proceeding pending the proceeding before the Kretinga district court, which, it noted, would have a judicial and evidential impact on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. Referring to Articles V(1)(c) and V(2)(b) NYC, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas held that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce the award without deciding whether the Republic of Lithuania could commit to arbitration. It therefore decided to await the decision of the Kretinga district court on the matter. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1446&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 25 November 2003 Parties RAB „Szolmar“ v. UAB „Ukmedė“. Case number 3K-7-999/2003 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary RAB „Szolmar“ (“Szolmar”) entered into a contract with UAB „Ukmedė“ (“Ukmedė”), which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose and Szolmar initiated arbitration proceedings against Ukmedė, obtaining a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Ukmedė objected to the enforcement on the basis of Article II(2) NYC, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not valid, and that the parties had not agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration, as Ukmedė had not signed the contract. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas found in favor of Ukmedė and refused enforcement of the award. Szolmar appealed before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania). The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas overruled the decision of the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas, granting enforcement of the award, finding that there existed a valid arbitration agreement between the parties under Article II(2) NYC. It held that it was not necessary for an arbitration agreement to be signed or stamped in order to be valid, finding that a court may accept additional written evidence to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement. It concluded that in the present case, there was sufficient evidence to show that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1447&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Lithuania Court Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) Date 08 September 2003 Parties Jusimi corporation v. UAB “Cygnus” Case number 3K-3-782/2003 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source https://www.lat.lt (website of the Supreme Court of Lithuania)
Summary Jusimi corporation (“Jusimi”) entered into an agreement with UAB “Cygnus” (“Cygnus”), which contained an arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and Cygnus initiated arbitration proceedings against Jusimi, obtaining a favorable award, which it sought to have recognized and enforced in Lithuania before the Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas (Court of Appeals of Lithuania). Jusimi objected to the enforcement on the basis of Article V(1)(b) NYC, arguing that it had not received a copy of the request for arbitration. The Lietuvos Apeliacinis Teismas held in favor of Cygnus, finding that there was no violation of due process and that Jusimi had received all documents in relation to the arbitration. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) upheld the decision of the lower court, granting enforcement of the award. It first noted that Article V(1)(b) NYC requires the court to determine whether the parties had been duly notified of the arbitration proceedings and, in case it found any irregularities, to assess whether there had been a violation of due process. It held that in the present case, although Jusimi was informed of the arbitration proceeding later than it should have been, the delay did not constitute a serious violation of due process. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1445&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
