Data

Date:: 19-05-2003
Country:: Lithuania
Number:: 3K-3-612
Court:: Supreme Court of Lituania
Parties:: G.Brencius v. “Ukio investicine grupe”

Keywords

SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LITHUANIAN COMPANY AND A LITHUANIAN INDIVIDUAL - GOVERNED BY LITHUANIAN LAW - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW

HARDSHIP - SUPERVENING SUBSTANTIAL DECREASES IN THE VALUE OF THE SHARES - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO HARDSHIP SINCE BUYER DEEMED TO ASSUME RISK OF FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PRICE (ARTICLES 6.204 OF THE LITHUANIAN CIVIL CODE CORRESPONDING TO ARTICLES 6.2.1 TO 6.2.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

Abstract

Plaintiff, a Lithuanian company, entered into a contract with Defendant, a Lithuanian individual for the sale of its shares. Defendant, after having made a down payment of 20% of the total price, refused to pay the balance. When Plaintiff sued Defendant requesting the payment of the outstanding sum, Defendant invoked hardship on the ground that in the meantime the company had become insolvent with the consequence that the value of the shares was considerably diminished.

While Defendant was successful in the courts of the first and second Instance, the Supreme Court decided in Plaintiff’s favour. According to the Court in the case at hand Defendant was not entitled to invoke the doctrine of changed circumstances or hardship as the latter does not apply to monetary obligations and in any case in the case at hand the risk of fluctuations of the price of the shares was deemed to be assumed by Defendant. In this respect the Court referred to Article 6.204 of the Lithuanian Civil Code which in substance corresponds to Articles 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles.

Fulltext

The Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, consisting of the justices Teodora Staugaitiene (President and rapporteur), Valentinas Mikelenas and Antanas Simniškis,

In public proceedings decided a case pursuant to the cassation claim of the plaintiff Gintaras Brencius concerning the decision of October 7, 2002 of Kaunas District Court and the decision of December 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Lithuania. The plaintiff request to review the decision of lower courts against the respondent joint stock company (UAB) “Ukio banko investicine grupe” on the following points: the debt for sold shares, interests and default interests, requirement to acquire sold shares. Moreover, the respondent “Ukio banko investicine grupe” asks the court to review its counterclaim against the plaintiff concerning the claim to terminate the contract and the requirement to return the money paid.

The third party in this case is joint stock company “MAS Consult”.

THE COURT FOUND THAT:

The plaintiff initiated proceedings on October 26, 2001. The plaintiff indicated the contract for sale of shares was made with the respondent on October 25, 2000. The respondent promised to acquire 26 items of nominal shares from the plaintiff and pay 300 000 LTL. The respondent promised to pay this amount in instalments: 40 000 LTL on the day when the contract was signed, 20 000 LTL until December 31, 2000, and remaining 240 000 LTL until March 31, 2001. The respondent paid first two instalments, i.e. 60 000 LTL as agreed by the parties. However, the last instalment of 240 000 LTL was not paid. The plaintiff received a response after the final term of the due payment (March 31, 2001) where the respondent indicated that he will follow the conditions of the contract and the appendix of the contract. Nonetheless, the respondent failed to pay the money. Therefore, the plaintiff referred to the court submitting following claims pursuant to Articles 6, 176, 177, 195, 253, 260 of the Civil Code of 1964 and Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.38, 6.63, 6.210, 6.344 of the New Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (2001). In particular, the plaintiff asked the court to oblige the respondent to pay remaining 240 000 LTL for the shares sold and oblige the respondent to acquire all 26 items of third party‘s “MAS Consult” nominal shares. Moreover, the plaintiff asked to pay 3% (1750 LTL) of default interest for the period of April 4, 2001—July 1st, 2001; and 5% annual interests of the amount not paid from July 1, 2001 until the day of enforcement of the decision of the court. The plaintiff also submitted the costs of proceedings and legal counselling to be paid by the respondent.
The respondent made a counterclaim on December 27, 2001 asking to terminate the contract for the sale of shares. The respondent provided he failed to perform the contract of the sale of shares since after the contract was made and first instalments were paid the third party joint stock company “MAS Consult” (whose shareholder until then was the plaintiff) did not perform any business activities while the its obligations were increasing. These circumstances created concerns whether it was not the case of intentional insolvency of the company.
Vilnius District Court started insolvency proceedings to “MAS Consult” by the decree of October 15, 2001. Therefore, because of such change of circumstances the respondent could not perform the contract and the plaintiff lost the entitlement to require performance of the contract. The respondent submitted the balance of contractual obligations changed when the insolvency proceedings were initiated. The object of the dispute was shares, i.e. the proprietary and non-proprietary rights of shareholders. The object of the dispute of the sales contract disappeared after the initiation of the insolvency proceedings. In particular, the shares of the insolvent company lost their qualities as securities. The remaining part of the obligation (240 000 LTL) exceeds requirements of the plaintiff and should be considered as disproportional. Neither of the parties could have influenced the initiation of the insolvency proceedings and could not control the pace of the proceedings. If one of the parties can not perform the contractual obligation because of such circumstance for which neither of the parties is responsible, none of the contracting parties can require performance of the contract, unless the contract or laws provide otherwise. In such case, parties have a right to require returning everything what they have previously performed under the contract without any additional conditions. Additionally, pursuant to Article 6.62(1) of the New Civil Code the respondent asked the court to terminate the contract of the sale of shares of October 25, 2000 and to oblige the plaintiff to return 60 000 LTL.
Kaunas District Court rejected the claim and counterclaim by the decision of October 7, 2002; ordered the plaintiff to pay 11 000 LTL of court’s fee for the making the claim and 24 LTL for postal service expenses. The court decided to order to enforce part of this decision nor earlier than November 4, 2002; and ordered the respondent “Ukio banko investicine grupe” to pay 24 LTL for postal service expenses. The court found that respondent based the claim on Article 6.62(1) of the Civil Code. Pursuant this provision, in case where one party can no longer perform the obligation stemming from the contract because of the emergence of circumstances for which neither of the parties are responsible, neither of the contracting parties can require the other party to perform the contract although both can ask to return everything that has been transferred before the emergence of such circumstance.
The responded indicated the following circumstance: the initiation of insolvency proceedings to the issuer of the shares joint stock company “MAS Consult” which pre-empts the performance of the obligation and the payment the full amount of the price of shares for the plaintiff. Kaunas District Court also rejected respondent‘s counterclaim‘s request to terminate the contract for the sale of shares and ordered the plaintiff to return 60 000 LTL which were obtained for the shares. The Court argued the insolvency case was initiated after the respondent failed to comply contractual limitation period for the payment of the full price for acquired plaintiff‘s shares. In accordance with Article 6.63(4) of the New Civil Code the debtor is liable for all circumstances related with non-performance of the obligation after he breached the obligation except when the obligation can not be performed because of the fault of the creditor. The Court emphasised that contractual obligations between the parties of the sale of shares contract occurred before the New Civil Code entered into force. Therefore, following the wording of Articles 4(2) and 41(2) of Law on the Approval, Coming into Force and Implementation of the Civil Code mutual obligations of the parties shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1964. The court consented that plaintiff‘s request shall be performed under Article 260 of the Civil Code of 1964. Additionally, the court noticed that taking into consideration particularity of the contract (sale of shares as special kind of securities) and essentially changed circumstances it would be unjust to satisfy plaintiff‘s requirement to perform the obligation of payment in toto.
Kaunas District Court further argued that following principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations of the respondent, at the time when disputed contract was concluded, reasonably expected to acquire proprietary and non-proprietary rights stemming from the shares. However, the initiation of the insolvency proceedings for the third person resulted in reduced scope of these rights. The court relied on the report of the financial analyst where it was stated that after the initiation of the insolvency proceedings the value of shares became 0. Hence, the court came to a conclusion the disputed object of the contract ceased to exist because of the circumstances which contracting parties could not influence. Moreover, the buyer did not get the shares and, thus, will not get the rights which he reasonably expected to acquire on the basis of the sale agreement of the shares which he bought from the plaintiff. Therefore, it would obviously be non-equivalent and economically unreasonable to require the respondent to perform the whole monetary obligation; and this is exactly the content of Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964. Referring to Article 1.5 of the New Civil Code and Article 4 of the Law on the Approval, Coming into Force and Implementation of the Civil Code the court decided in case of essential change of circumstances, the balance of performance of the obligations would conform to the reasonable standards of business practice, if precise amount of instalments was determined. The Court established the amount of instalment which was equal to the amount previously paid by the respondent, i.e. 60 000 LTL, and decided the responded had already performed the monetary obligation to the plaintiff.

The Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Lithuania, after examination of the plaintiff‘s claim for appeal, adopted a decision on December 17, 2002 and left the decision of Kaunas District Court unchanged. The Chamber indicated the court of first instance in deciding the case concerning the monetary obligation stemming from sale of shares contract and relying on Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1064 (according to which the court, after deciding that in case of special change of circumstances one of the parties has to bear obviously excessive expenses which could not have been foreseen by the party) was entitled either to determine the amount of the instalments to be paid or to terminate the contract. The Chamber also stated that Article 6.204(2) and 6.204(3) of the New Civil Code posits the same method of solution of contractual disputes. More precisely, these provisions provide a legal basis according to which the court may, if the circumstances change and result in essential increase of costs of performance or the amount of the performed obligation essentially decreased, either to terminate the contract or to amend the clauses of the contract in order to re-establish the equilibrium of contractual obligations. After closer consideration of existing evidence, the Chamber acknowledged the respondent was certain about the successfulness of the contract concluded and expected profitable performance of the company whose shares were acquired.
The Chamber decided that at the moment of the conclusion of the contested contract the respondent had reasonable ground to expect positive results because according to the financial statements the joint stock company “MAS Consult” was liquid; the financial value of one nominal share of 200 LTL was 896 32 LTL at December 31, 2000, although from the report of the financial analyst on the performance of the company it was obvious that shares of the joint stock company “MAS Consult” were, in fact, not valuable at the time when the sales contract of the shares was concluded. Moreover, the Chamber emphasised the respondent could not have foreseen these circumstances without closer investigation of the performance of the company and found them out only after the contract was concluded. The Chamber decided the conclusion of the court of first instance that respondent who bought shares for 300 000 LTL acquired worthless property was correct. The Chamber also agreed with the decision of the first instance court to amend the clauses of the contract approving that the respondent had fulfilled his contractual monetary obligation by paying 60 000 LTL for the plaintiff. It was submitted the decision of the court of first instance conforms, in principle, to the conditions of Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964 and Article 6.204 of the New Civil Code. Such decision is also in line with the principle of justice (Article 1.5 of the New Civil Code) which implies that in deciding a dispute a court shall seek to maintain the balance of different interests and take into consideration reasonable interests of both parties. The Chamber came to a conclusion that satisfying the claim of the plaintiff ordering to 240 000 LTL for the shares which lost their value would undermine the interests of the respondent and the balance of the mutual obligations of the contracting parties would not be maintained. Furthermore, the Chamber rejected the argument submitted by the appellant (the plaintiff) that the court of first instance exceeded the limits of the claim. It was admitted the conclusion of the court of first instance that considering the circumstances provided in the counter-claim of the respondent, it was reasonable to restore the balance of contractual obligations.

In the cassation claim the plaintiff asks to annul the part of the decision of Kaunas District Court of October 7, 2002, to the extent the claim was rejected; to annul the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals of December 17, 2002, and to adopt a new decision. In particular, the plaintiff requests to order the respondent UAB “Ukio banko investicine grupe” to pay 240 000 LTL debt for non-performed obligation, to order to pay 3% of default interest for the period from April 1, 2001 until June 30, 2001 (240000x3% /100x91/365-1795 Lt); to order to pay annual interest in the amount of 5% for the period from July 1, 2002 until the day of enforcement of the court‘s decision for the amount of 240 000 LTL which was not paid on the agreed date (Decision of October 1, 2001 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in civil case No. 3K-3-885/2001); to order to pay 6111 LTL of court’s fee for making a claim and costs for legal counselling in the proceedings before lower courts; order the respondent to acquire 26 items of the nominal shares of joint stock company “MAS Consult”; to leave the part of the decision of October 7, 2002 of Kaunas District Court where the court rejected respondent‘s counter-claim unchanged. It was also submitted in the cassation claim that courts erroneously applied and interpreted material norms and did not apply rules which were to be applied (Articles 176, 177(1), 236, 253, 260 of the Civil Code of 1964 and Article 1.5, 6.63(4), 6.204, 6.210 and 6.344 of the New Civil Code). Additionally, the plaintiff submitted the lower courts departed from the established practice of the Supreme Court which was decisive for the adoption of unlawful decisions. Particularly, the cassation claim is based on these arguments:
1. Courts of lower instances erroneously applied Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964, Article 6.204(2) and 6.204(3) of the new civil code. The courts also incorrectly determined that the respondent in concluding the disputed sales of shares contract could not foresee high, obviously non-equivalent expenses. The respondent was given all possibilities to find out and evaluate the financial status of the company, and determine the existence of non-liquidity and intentional insolvency. Moreover, pursuant to Article 3.5 of the contract, parties refused making any claims concerning the value of shares of the joint stock company “MAS Consult”. Parties also consented that the price of shares will be 300 000 LTL (i.e. the same amount as indicated at the day when the contract was signed) disregarding any other circumstances.
2. According the report of December 20, 2001 of the financial analyst, unilateral change of the price of the shares after the lapse of the term for the performance of the contract does not release the respondent from proper performance of the contract.
3. The Court of Appeals should not have applied Article 6.204(3) of the New Civil Code which permitted one contracting party to refer to the other contracting party when the performance of the contract became more complicated. The respondent did not make any claims concerning the clauses of the sale of shares contract, did not propose to amend them and did not contest the contract. Moreover, after the term for the performance elapsed, once again confirmed the intention to comply with the clauses of the contract and its appendix without any exceptions. Thus, the contract shall be performed pursuant to the written contract and the law (Article 175 of the Civil Code of 1964).
4. By applying Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964 the court of first instance departed from the June 13, 1997 Decision (concerning the laws related with the adoption of the courts’ decisions) of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania by exceeding the limits of the claim. Pursuant to Article 1977(2) of the Civil Code of the 1964, the court, after examining the interests of the parties, may determine the amount of the instalment of the performance of the obligation or terminate the contract. The respondent did not ask to reduce the amount of instalments or terminate the contract pursuant to Article 177(2) of the 1964; the respondent made a claim pursuant to Article 6.62(1) of the New Civil Code asking to terminate the contract and to recover the 60 000 LTL paid.
5. Lower courts erroneously applied and interpreted Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964, Articles 6.62(1) and 6.204 of the New Civil Code which provide conditions of force majeure which results in the change of the balance of contractual obligations. The courts should have applied Articles 6.63(4) and 6.260(2) of the New Civil Code. Yet, the court, upon the claim of one of the parties could have determined the amount of instalments or terminate the contract only if the period of the performance of the contract was not over. The debtor is responsible for all consequences related impossibility to perform the contract after the breach of the contract (failure to pay in timely manner) except obligation is impossible to perform because of the fault of the creditor. The plaintiff, as a creditor did not have any counter-obligations to the respondent until the latter was to fulfil the obligation; the actions of the debtor were completely independent from the actions of the creditor, therefore, the obligation was not performed not because of the fault of the creditor. The whole liability shall be born by the respondent.
6. the courts erroneously applied and interpreted Article 6.204(2) of the New Civil Code and incorrectly found that the circumstance of the initiation of insolvency proceedings to a third person could not have been foreseen and controlled by the respondent. The respondent, as the creditor of the company referred to Vilnius District Court requesting to initiate insolvency proceedings. Moreover, the respondent proposed the insolvency administrator who should have had the right to control the property of the insolvent company. The respondent actively participated in the management of the company and undertook the burden of possibility circumstances which might have made the performance of the contract more difficult or even impossible.
7. The courts undermined the principles of legal certainty, reasonableness and protection of legitimate expectations (Article 1.5 of the New Civil Code) by failing to fully clarify the content of the contract. Pursuant to Article 3.4 of the contract, the plaintiff (seller) undertook the duty to vote on any question in the general meeting f shareholders of the joint stock company “MAS Consult” under the written agreement with the respondent. Moreover, the plaintiff, as a shareholder of this company, could not make decisions independently, his proprietary rights were restricted. The notice of the respondent of April 17, 2001 created reasonable expectations to the plaintiff that the obligation will be performed. Additionally, the plaintiff suffered damages because he did not receive the money in time; he could not satisfy his personal proprietary interests. Thus, non-performance of the obligation caused much more damages for the plaintiff and a natural person that the responding company.

The counter-claim to the cassation appeal pursuant to Article 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not received.
HEREBY, THE CHAMBER DECIDES:

According to Article 358(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964, the cassation court has the authority to review the contested decisions in the light of the application of substantive law. In the present case, the object of the cassation is the application of the substantive norms which regulate the contratual relations.
It is foud in this on October 25, 2000, the parties concluded a contract for the sale of shares pursuant to which the seller promised to pay for the shares until March 31, 2001. However, the payment was not made. The court of first instance correctly decided that mutual rights and duties of the parties at the time of conclusion and expiration of the contract shall be governed by the norms of the Civil code of 1964 (Article 4(2) and 41(2) of the Law on the Approval, Coming into force and Implementation of the Civil Code).
The buyer breached the contract by disregarding the term for the payment for the shares. The court decided the plaintiff‘s claim to perform the monetary obligation to be justified (Article 260 of the Civil Code of 1964); nevertheless, considering found circumstances of the case applied Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964. The court found extraordinary change of circumstances, considered interests of the parties, determined different that agreed in the contract amount of the payments and, finally, rejected the claim.
Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964 provides:
“If the an extraordinary change of the circumstances makes the performance of the obligation extremely complicated or one of the parties might bear great and non-equivalent expenses which could nat have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the court, after considering the interests of the parties, upon the request of one of the parties may determine the amount of the instalments to perform the obligation or terminate the contract.”
This provision defines the effect of essentially changed circumstances to the carrying out of the contract. Similar legal regime is entrenched in Article 6.204 of the New Civil Code which reiterates Articles 6.2.1-6.2.3 of UNIDROIT Principles. These norms provide the exceptions of the principle of sanctity of the contract. The application of these norms, in case of the conditions prescribed by the law, allows maintaining the balance of the interests of the contracting parties. Conversely, unconditional application of that principle pacta sunt servanda might in certain cases mean the infringement of principles of reasonableness, fairness and justice.
Considering the decision of the lower courts on the application of the Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964, the Chamber emphasises this norm allows the modification of the content of contractual obligations in the period when these obligations are to be performed. It follows Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964 may be applied only if the contract is not performed, or, if a part of the contract is performed, to a remaining non-performed part of the contract. It was already noticed before the respondent breached the contract by failing to pay the amount on time agreed in the contract. Therefore, the court shall apply substantial norms determining the liability of for the breach of the contract. It should be born in mind that Article 234 of the Civil Code of 1964 determining legal consequences of the breach of bilateral non-proprietary obligations shall not be applied in this case. The plaintiff submitted the claim based on the non-performance of the monetary obligation which stems from the sales contract. Norms determining the hardship to perform the contract can not be applied to the monetary obligations. Therefore, the performance of a monetary obligation can be required in any case. The Chamber, relying on legal arguments provided above, decides that the court of first instance erroneously applied Article 177(2) of the Civil Code of 1964 to the claim of the plaintiff.
Mutual rights and obligations between the parties arose from the contract. The content of the principle of freedom of contract has many facets; only one of them should be highlighted. In the case at hand, i.e. that parties are free to enter into a contract and determine their mutual rights and duties themselves. The parties are free to determine the content of the contract unless the law provides otherwise. Article 3.5 of the contract of October 25, 2000 on sale of shares provides the buyer (joint stock company UAB “Ukio banko investicine grupe”) refuses to provide any claims concerning any obligations of UAB “MAS Consult” and the value of shares. Thus, buying special kind of goods (shares), the buyer expected, as indicated in the decision of the court of first instance, to purchase proprietary and non-proprietary rights granted to the owner of the shares. Additionally, the buyer also undertook the risks related with the possible change of the value of the shares. The Chamber of the Supreme Court at this point emphasised that according to Article 3.5 of the contract, the buyer refused to make any claims concerning any obligations of the joint stock company „MAS Consult“ and the value of the shares during the period of the validity of the contract, i.e. until the performance of the contract. However, it was found in the case that circumstances on which the respondent based the counterclaim asking for the termination of the contract occurred after the period for the performance of the contract elapsed. It follows that the respondent breached the contract by failing to pay the amount the purchased goods in timely manner (Article 176(1) of the Civil Code of 1964). It was noticed above that this conclusion was reached by the court of first instance. The judge of the court of first instance correctly argued that Article 260 of the Civil Code of 1964 shall be applied to the claim of the plaintiff pursuant to which the seller can require the buyer to purchase the good and pay the price if the buyer breached the contract by refusing to pay the price agreed in the contract. Since the court of first instance erroneously applied Article 177 of the Civil Code of 1964 and court of appeals failed to correct the mistakes of the application of substantial norms, both decisions of lower courts shall be annulled to the extent the plaintiffs claim was rejected.
According to the merits of this case, the court shall adopt a new decision by which the claim shall be satisfied. Therefore, the respondent shall pay: deficient amount, i.e. 240 000 LTL, which was not paid as agreed by the sale of shares contract; pursuant to Article 236 of the Civil Code of 1964, 3%, i.e. 1795 LTL, of the default interest of the amount which was not paid in time; pursuant to Article 6. 210(1) of the New Civil Code, 5% of the annual interest for the amount of 240 000 from the date of July 1, 2001, until the enforcement of the contract; 6 022 LTL court’s fee for making the claim (Article 104(1)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964); and 12 000 costs of legal counselling (Article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964).
The respondent shall also pay 15 000 LTL of court’s fee for making the claim the payment of which was postponed by the decrees of the court of June 3, 2002 and October 22, 2002 (Article 103, 117(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964) and 84,10 LTL for the postal service expenses.
According Article 3.3 of the shares sales contract of October 25, 2000, the ownership right of shares passes to the buyer after full payment of the price and the appropriate record in the book shareholders of joint stock company UAB “MAS Consult” is made. Thus, the buyer becomes the owner of the shares after the conditions of the contract are fulfilled, therefore, the order of the court to transfer the shares would be excessive.
Taking into consideration the merits of the case, the decisions of the court of first instance and court of appeals concerning the rejection of the plaintiff‘s counter-claim should have been different; however, the decisions are in principle correct and procedural documents concerning the counter-claim of the respondent are not be subject to review.
Pursuant to Article 368 (1) (4), Article 368 (2) and Article 370 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania, decides:
To annul the decision of the Kaunas District Court of October 7, 2002, to the extent the claim of plaintiff Gintaras Brencius were rejected and he was ordered to cover the costs of proceedings; to annul the decision of December 17, 2002 of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that the part of the decision of the court of first instance was left not changed; and to adopt a new decision: to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff Gintaras Brencius.
To order the respondent joint stock company “Ukio banko investicine grupe” (company code 3520109, account number No. 29467809, 87087884 in AB “Vilniaus bankas”) to pay the plaintiff: 1) 240 000 LTL according the contract of October 25, 2000; 2) 1795 LTL default interest; 3) 5% annual interest for the unpaid 240 000 LTL from July 1, 2001 until the enforcement of the judgement of this court; 4) 6022 LTL of court’s fee for making the claim and to cover 12 000 LTL costs for legal counselling. The respondent “Ukio banko investicine grupe” is also ordered to pay 15 000 LTL of court’s fee for making the claim and 84,10 LTL for the postal services.
To leave the other part of the decision of October 7, 2002 of Kaunas District court as well as the decision of December 17, 2002 of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Lithuania unchanged.

This decision of the Supreme Courto of the Republic of Lithuania is final, not subject to appeal and comes into force from the day of its adoption.
JUDGES
Teodora Staugaitiene
Valentinas Mikelenas
Antanas Simniškis

[Translation by Paulius Jurcys, Fukuoka/Vilnius.]}}

Source

}}