[ad_1]
The Plaintiff The Kretinga District Municipality Administration asked the court for a claim from the defendant (doctor) EUR 26,129.42 in damages, EUR 7,838.83 in fines, 5 percent annual interest of the amount awarded from the day of the litigation until the court decision. Full compliance and litigation costs. The applicant stated that in 2013 between the applicant, a doctor and the Kretinga Hospital a tripartite support agreement for the study was concluded, under which the applicant agreed to provide financial support for the studies of a defendant studying a program from five-year medical surgery and to get a job at Kretinga Hospital no later than one month after graduation. and work on it for at least five years with at least one publication. Defendant Aivaras Miltenis, who is currently the defendant in the case of the late mannequin Dovilė Didžiūnaitytė, has not fulfilled her contractual obligations, after graduation she worked only for one year, instead of the planned five.
According to the report of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the court of first instance confirmed the claim in part and awarded damages compensation of € 20,467.17, a fine of € 6,140.15, an annual interest of 5 percent on the amount awarded of 26,607.32 euros, and postponed the execution of the sentence. For 6 months. The district court reduced the damages claimed and the fine in proportion to the year worked in the defendant’s hospital.
The appellants and the accused appealed. The applicant requested an order for damages and fines and did not agree to the suspension of the sentence. The accused, for his part, appealed only the part of the sentence that grants 5%. interest, and agreed in principle to most of the action.
The panel of judges, which examined the case on appeal, reversed the district court’s decision and upheld the claim in its entirety, awarding the plaintiff € 26,129.42 for damages and a fine of € 7,838.83, plus 5%. procedural interest amount.
The district court noted that the signed tripartite agreement is an independent agreement voluntarily signed by the parties, which is not exclusively subject to the provisions of separate laws. Under the terms of the study grant agreement, the parties clearly and specifically stated their intentions and obligations, stated the subject of the agreement and other essential terms of the agreement, discussed their actual intentions: the plaintiff provided funds for a third party to obtain the specialist surgeon. necessary, the defendant, without using his financial and / or other possible resources, acquired the desired specialty of a medical surgeon and got a job for at least 5 years. The defendant became familiar with the condition of the contract that if the term is not met, he will have to return to the municipal administration all the financial support provided with 30 percent. bauda
A. Miltenis did not initiate a change in the term of the contract during the entire term of the contract, therefore, the reduction of the enrollment fee that will be reimbursed by the defendant in accordance with the principle of proportionality would harm the interests of the applicant and the legitimate expectations.
Rejecting the defendant’s request for failure to pay the plaintiff’s interest, the district court stated that there was no reason not to grant procedural interest, especially since there was no evidence that the defendant had paid at least part of the damages. or fines. Neither the financial restrictions imposed on the accused in the criminal proceedings before him justify the non-adjudication of procedural interests.
In the opinion of the panel of judges, the district court was justified in postponing the execution of the sentence because the defendant could only have a limited amount of money per month due to restrictions on property rights in the criminal case. According to the appeals court, it was also reasonable to keep in mind that postponing the execution of the sentence indefinitely until the criminal proceedings were heard (as requested by the accused) would clearly be detrimental to the interests of the applicant.
The decision of the regional court will take effect from the day of its publication, but within 3 months it can be appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court of Lithuania.
Delfi already wrote that surgeon A. Miltenis from Klaipeda became one of the young specialists whose residency studies were funded by the Kretinga district municipality. After completing his residency studies, the future doctor at the Kretinga Hospital promised to study and work for five years under a contract. A. Miltenis officially started working at this hospital in August 2018.
However, it turned out that the surgeon involved in the D. Didžiūnaityt caso case voluntarily announced that he would be leaving the Kretinga Hospital on September 1. Due to this step for which he breached his obligations under the tripartite agreement, he was fined a solid fine.
According to Delfi, the conclusion of the post mortem examination affirms that A. Miltenis’ DNA was found in the girl’s body.
The surgeon arrived at the hotel where the tragedy occurred at the invitation of R. Piniko. When the producer left, only a doctor and a mannequin remained in the hotel room. It is true that it is not clear if the previous sex took place by mutual consent or coercion, so it was a shadow for A. Miltenis who could take advantage of the model’s state of defenselessness.
On June 17, the court finally opened a case in which defendants R. Pinikas and A. Miltenis denied the crimes against him.
R. Pinikas and A. Miltenis are accused of causing physical pain, illegal drug possession, and exposure to a witness. Furthermore, the doctor is still accused of raping the girl.
It is strictly prohibited to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, DELFI must be cited as the source.
[ad_2]
