THE COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCEDURE

When a public entity (municipality, municipal or state-owned enterprise or institution) receives a claim/complaint, in accordance with the essentially binding recommendations issued by the controlling and often intimidating authorities, the complaint/claim must be examined initially by persons other than those whose decisions are the subject of the claim/complaint. The second, and no less important, aspect is that the claim/complaint must be examined by a person/persons with legal experience. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has repeatedly made it clear that a response to a claim/complaint must include all the circumstances and legal arguments so that, in case of legal dispute, they could be used later on in the court proceedings. In other words, if the response to a claim/complaint does not include one or other of the grounds and legal arguments, the court simply will not accept or evaluate these grounds and arguments later on, which could result in the whole dispute being lost, despite you being right, due to insufficient legal reasoning. This is also true of public procurement, the procurement committee does not have to examine claims received during the procurement process, instead experienced lawyers should take care of that. Furthermore, any claim/complaint must be dealt with impartially, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest. This is one of the reasons why PROTEGO does not represent any business entities so that conflict of interest never arises, as it is business entities that most often file claims/complaints against one or another decision of public entities. If the claim/complaint is assessed correctly and detailed answers are provided, it is often possible to avoid time-consuming and resource-depleting litigation. Even if the dispute still makes it to the courtroom, the response to the claim/complaint will be drafted in such a way that the court principally will be already in a position to assess OUR (your and PROTEGO’s together) validity. And since PROTEGO does not see, hear or say, but instead knows, does and advises, all the particulars will be reserved only for US.

THE COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCEDURE

When a public entity (municipality, municipal or state-owned enterprise or institution) receives a claim/complaint, in accordance with the essentially binding recommendations issued by the controlling and often intimidating authorities, the complaint/claim must be examined initially by persons other than those whose decisions are the subject of the claim/complaint. The second, and no less important, aspect is that the claim/complaint must be examined by a person/persons with legal experience. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has repeatedly made it clear that a response to a claim/complaint must include all the circumstances and legal arguments so that, in case of legal dispute, they could be used later on in the court proceedings. In other words, if the response to a claim/complaint does not include one or other of the grounds and legal arguments, the court simply will not accept or evaluate these grounds and arguments later on, which could result in the whole dispute being lost, despite you being right, due to insufficient legal reasoning. This is also true of public procurement, the procurement committee does not have to examine claims received during the procurement process, instead experienced lawyers should take care of that. Furthermore, any claim/complaint must be dealt with impartially, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest. This is one of the reasons why PROTEGO does not represent any business entities so that conflict of interest never arises, as it is business entities that most often file claims/complaints against one or another decision of public entities. If the claim/complaint is assessed correctly and detailed answers are provided, it is often possible to avoid time-consuming and resource-depleting litigation. Even if the dispute still makes it to the courtroom, the response to the claim/complaint will be drafted in such a way that the court principally will be already in a position to assess OUR (your and PROTEGO’s together) validity. And since PROTEGO does not see, hear or say, but instead knows, does and advises, all the particulars will be reserved only for US.