The court reached the first commercial complaint about the quarantine ban

The text was complemented by a comment by Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis, the lawyers’ meals and their precedents in other EU countries.

The Aukštaitija Implantology Clinic, which filed the complaint, claims that the government stepped down in mid-March to establish businesses. mon asks for € 70,000 to be reimbursed for the loss of income and the resulting loss.

On March 14, the government had the right to provide special conditions of work, service, recreation, special travel, but at the time it did not have the authority to do business, BNN lawyer Nerijus Zaleckas said.

According to him, this was partially recognized by parliament when he later amended the laws, establishing the government’s right to impose bans.

The government had no power and the Seimas later tried to legitimize the government’s actions retroactively, N. Zaleckas said.

S. Skvernelis: the court will respond

Commenting on the complaint, Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis told journalists in the government on Wednesday that the court will answer the question of whether trade rights have been violated.

We live in a state governed by the rule of law. Everyone, both a natural person and a business entity, has the right to defend their rights in court if they believe that their rights have been violated. This is normal practice. If anyone believes their rights have been violated, the court will answer the question, he said.

This is the first known complaint about the government prohibiting quarantine.

V ra until June 17. Entrepreneurs who feel the economic consequences of the current quarantine can lead their colleagues along the path known in other countries of the European Union.

It was already the case that the Government first declared quarantine and restricted the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution, which could only be restricted on the basis of law, and only amended the legislation later. However, according to the theory of law, return bets are invalid. Such an unequivocal position is also followed in the jurisprudence. Therefore, the resolution adopted by the Government that restricts the fundamental rights and freedoms provided for in the Constitution is de jure illegal, said V Jonas Zaronskis, a partner in the Avocad law firm.

Miroslav Noseviius, partner at Ellex Valiunas and head of the commercial litigation subgroup, points out that another context under discussion is whether too few measures have been taken, i. and. The necessary measures have been taken but the proportionality of the non-compliance has not been met.

This issue is considered to be more relevant in the event of possible disputes and the application of civil liability to the state would be considered in relation to it, says M. Noseviius.

ECU precedent

There are already court rulings in the Member States of the European Union that determine that the actions of public authorities in applying the quarantine restrictions have become overwhelming. The court’s decision alone was made by the Czech Republic.

2020 April 27 The Prague court ruled in favor of restrictions on the movement of companies, as well as restrictions on trade and the provision of services.

The court based its decision on the fact that the restrictions imposed during the quarantine were not approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, but only by the Minister of Health.

A similar method of government decision-making is likely to prevail in Lithuania, as mentioned above, and in Lithuania the government resolution had to be approved by the Seimas to avoid disputes over the government ebullition, but this was not done, says J. Zaronskis.

Such an ecological court decision is a great example of defending violated rights, adds the lawyer.

The company, which provides dental and beauty services, filed a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. The lawyer says that he believes that the destruction of the Constitutional Court will be necessary in this case as well.

To stop the spread of the new coronavirus, the government quarantined Lithuania and restricted the provision of trade and services from March 16. The restrictions I saw began to worsen in the second half of April.

The prohibitions and restrictions are based on the Company’s laws on Disease Prevention and Control and Civil Protection.

provide 730,000 euros for the remuneration of the beers

In its comment, the Ministry of Justice previously stated that in the event of an appeal against a court decision on quarantine, the state could be represented in court by the government or by another institution. The Ministry of Justice mainly represents in cases related to the reimbursement of court beer.

The order granted by the court would be reimbursed to the allocation administered by the Ministry of Justice for illegal actions by the authorities, and if it were not sufficient from other sources. The budget of this ministry provides for the reimbursement of about 730,000 euros of beer made by state institutions in accordance with court decisions. In case of much higher demand, the government can provide additional funds.

In accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (article 51, paragraph 4), the State is represented in civil proceedings by the Government or a state institution authorized by it (suddenly), in the cases provided by law, by another institution. . The government is represented in civil proceedings by a state institution in its possession (suddenly). The state may also be represented in civil proxy proceedings.

Rayti commented