Our dispute resolution team has successfully represented the clients defending the latter’s interests against the plaintiff’s demands to recognize the road easement determined by an administrative act almost 20 years ago as null and void.
After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented, both the first and appellate courts supported exactly the motives of our dispute resolution team, and therefore it was decided to reject the claim in both instances.
However, the dispute, which lasted even 3 years, finally ended after the case was examined by the extended panel of 7 judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In this way, the dispute resolution team of Motieka and Audzevičius had the opportunity to contribute to the formation of significant Lithuanian court practice, the interpretation and application of legal norms related to the establishment of land servitude by administrative act, grounds for termination of servitude, deadlines for appealing administrative acts.
Accordingly, the Motieka and Audzevičius dispute resolution team, representing the clients, presented detailed arguments confirming that the plaintiff’s claims were groundless and were made after missing the destructive 10-year deadline for appealing administrative acts. What’s more, the plaintiff did not prove the validity of the remaining alternative claims and the existence of grounds for the elimination of the easement.
Finally, the decision of the expanded 7-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Lithuania supported the arguments of our dispute resolution team. The extended panel of the Supreme Court of Lithuania recognized and clarified that if the 10-year limitation period for appealing an administrative act is missed, the plaintiff’s opportunity to file a claim for annulment of the administrative act (recognition as invalid) disappears.
The court stated that, in such a case, the plaintiff’s claim must be refused to accept – the court does not have the competence to decide on the annulment of the administrative act, regardless of what grounds the plaintiff relies on when disputing it (even when demanding to recognize the administrative act as null and void). Among other things, it was decided that the alternative claims could not be considered as independent claims. Also, the courts rightly rejected all the claims of the plaintiff.
This victory of the Motieka and Audzevičius dispute resolution team is significant not only for the clients and the team but also led to the formation of consistent and uniform Lithuanian court practice on significant issues of law application and interpretation.
