[ad_1]
“I have some useful information, especially for residents of the city, Kaunas district and those who used payment cards to park in Kaunas a few years ago as a way to pay for parking in Kaunas. I also had a card like that. I bought it at the Public Institution “Car Parking” (now – “Parking in Kaunas”), then I paid about 60 litas (17.38 euros – car. With this card it was possible to pay at ATMs in Kaunas. It was convenient for me because we went regularly to the Kaunas Clinical Hospital.
Soon the Kaunas City Council canceled this payment method (the card was available until December 31, 2017) and did not return the balance of the card: 9.38 euros. Why did I have to leave it to the Kaunas City Municipality? That is what I fought for the rest. It was a more principled fight. Now those cards are no longer valid, and who else has them, maybe there is a chance to get their money back ”, explained Tomas why he decided to sue the Kaunas city municipality for a small enough amount.
Photo by Reader Tomas / Parking Card in Kaunas
Having decided to recover the unspent money, he first went to “Parking”, the institution that at the time attended, collected and administered the paid parking fee in Kaunas. Tomás also sent the request to the Kaunas City Municipality Administration. He received a polite negative response from both recipients: he allegedly would not return the balance, as the law does not provide for such a possibility, and it is technically impossible to do so.
The amount is ridiculous, but I stuck to the principle that state and municipal institutions should not mislead citizens.
“When the municipality of the city of Kaunas did not find 9.38 euros in its meager budget, in October 2018 I applied to the Regional Administrative Court for property damage – 9.3 euros. On June 12, 2019, this court made a decision: my complaint is unfounded, the municipality of the city of Kaunas is right. I took the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. On October 21, 2020, a final and unappealable order was made. The complaint is confirmed and the accused grants me € 9.3.
The amount is ridiculous, but in this case I adhered to the principle that state and municipal institutions should not mislead citizens. Private funds cannot be arbitrarily misappropriated without providing a service. I think there are many of those people who did not care for a few euros, and it was convenient for Kaunas to keep those few or tens of thousands of euros. Perhaps after hearing about the end of my fight in court, other citizens are also running. Maybe we would force the Kaunas city municipality to blush? ”- Tomás, whose contact details are known to the editorial committee, offered his help to those who fell into such a situation.
When asked how much extra he had in fighting the municipality in court, he assured her that he had not released anything because he had prepared the documents for the courts himself (having been a law graduate), only to pay a stamp duty of € 23, which I would return. The Kaunas City Municipality has yet to implement the court ruling.
Municipality: He had enough time to contact us
The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shows that Tomas is not a resident of Kaunas, therefore he used the purchased card quite infrequently, 2-4 times a year. The validity date of the payment card was not specified at the time of purchase, but as of January 1, 2018, suddenly, as mentioned, there was no possibility to pay for parking in Kaunas. The Kaunas City Municipality abandoned the cards in April 2017 and gave their cardholders the opportunity to use the cash balance paying for parking until January 1, 2018.
Tomás evaluated in court that 9.3 euros is not a large sum for the municipality of the city of Kaunas and his refusal to enter into a peace treaty, avoid returning money that does not belong to him, does not honor and does not trust the municipality as institution, and creates reasons for the legitimate expectations of citizens not to be met.
The Kaunas city municipality administration argued in court that Tomás had sufficient and reasonable time to familiarize himself with the changes, that is, the determination of the expiration date of the established payment method: the payment card. In addition, the regulation is a normative act that has been made public in the Legislation Registry, the information on the validity periods of the payment cards has been published in the media, in the parking ticket vending machines, for what is accessible to all interested. According to the Municipal Administration of the City of Kaunas, the applicant Tomás, being prudent and diligent enough, had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the information and manage the balance of the card.
According to the Kaunas authorities, Tomás was responsible for not using the amount on the payment card.
However, in its ruling of October 21, the court determined that in the present case a situation had arisen in which the Kaunas City Municipality had not provided and would not provide Tom with services of the aforementioned type, but the applicant had paid the money. The municipality did not provide the court with any legal basis to justify the disposition of the money paid by the applicant. The provisions of the Tax Law in force at the time, as stated by the court, also did not stipulate that the local tax would not be refunded if the services were not rendered.
Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15 min photo / Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
Keep saving yours, but you will enforce the order
Justas Limanauskas, director of the Parkavimas Kaune budget institution, was asked to comment on this situation. 15 minutes It maintained that it had no legal basis to grant the applicant’s request and to reimburse the unused balance of the toll. According to him, this is an isolated case, because all the actions were carried out before the change of procedure, the residents were informed well in advance, had the opportunity to use the available cards, and an additional transition period was provided.
“The current toll regulations provide for a toll reimbursement mechanism, so such situations should not be repeated. However, the court order is unquestionable and must be enforced. The decision does not consider the abolition of one of the payment methods of the local rate and the introduction of a transitional period for the use of the card balance were illegal. Even in this case, the courts of different instances handled the dispute raised by the toll payer differently. However, as stated mentioned, the judicial sentence that has come into force must be complied with, ”said J. Limanauskas.
When asked how many of those local taxpayers who failed to use the balance of the cards and what is the amount of the unused local toll, the director of Parkavimas Kaunas could not answer.
“The transition period until December 31, 2017 was reasonable enough to use the balance and it is likely that most taxpayers exercised their rights in time,” he expected.
[ad_2]
