Lithuania / 26 June 2012 / Lithuania, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) / UAB „Luksora“, A.L. v. N. V. K., I. V. K. and R. W. A. v. K. / 3K-3-353/2012
| 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. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
