News

2019

2'22

Court dropped all charges against Chamber of Notaries and reminded competition supervisors of law primer

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court on 19 February upheld a claim by the Lithuanian Chamber of Notaries and members of its Presidium in full, annulling an earlier judgement by the Competition Council, which had found the Chamber and its Presidium members guilty of a breach of competition law and had imposed penalties.
The panel of judges ruled that members of the Presidium of the Chamber of Notaries had exercised their statutory responsibility and acted within the law when they adopted decisions that established uniform fees for notarial services. According to the ruling, in providing guidance to notaries, the Chamber of Notaries had performed its public duty of unifying the notarial practice as set out directly in the Law on the Notarial Profession. Therefore, the judges ruled, the Chamber of Notaries was not to be equated to an ‘economic undertaking’ as defined in the Law on Competition. According to the Court, the judgement by the Competition Council “should be acknowledged as legally void due to this factor alone”.
“The court has confirmed that we ourselves and the most prominent civil and competition law professionals from Lithuania and other European Union member states had been saying all along for almost two years, while the investigation into the Chamber of Notaries had been in progress. All the decisions made by the Chamber of Notaries comply with the regulations and even more so with its duty of unifying notarial practice as set forth in the Law on the Notarial Profession. The court has smashed all the legally unfounded accusations coming from the Competition Council concerning any alleged breaches of competition by the Chamber of Notaries and its Presidium members,” said Mr Marius Stračkaitis, a Klaipėda Notary Public and President of the Chamber of Notaries.
According to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the entire investigation by the Competition Council directed against the notaries had hinged on the legal interpretation and application of the concept of an ‘economic undertaking’, and such logic was itself “constructed in a legally risky manner“.
The Court found that the Competition Council had failed to prove that the Chamber of Notaries had adopted any decisions restricting competition. In addition, contrary to the Competition Council’s claims, the Chamber of Notaries did not exercise any influence over the Ministry of Justice concerning the approval of notarial service tariffs. In its ruling, the Court stated that the Ministry of Justice had its sole discretion in establishing notary fees, so it was able to essentially reject the tariffs suggested by the Chamber of Notaries or to recommend tariffs it deemed more appropriate. Contrary to the Competition Council’s claims, the case contained evidence that the Minister of Justice had actually approved some tariffs that were different from those suggested by the Chamber of Notaries; in other words, the Minister of Justice had not taken into account the comments and suggestions made by the Chamber of Notaries.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Competition Council had violated the constitutional principle that nobody should be prosecuted for the same breach twice. The Competition Council had penalised both the Lithuanian Chamber of Notaries collectively and some notaries as private individuals, even though the latter were members of the Presidium – the management body of the Lithuanian Chamber of Notaries.
In the Court’s opinion, the Chamber of Notaries is a state-controlled notarial authority performing clear public functions, therefore, the police-assisted sting operation by the Competition Council could be evaluated as superfluous and obstructing peaceful and respectful cooperation between legal institutions, thus programming a conflict between the Competition Council, the Ministry of Justice and the bodies in charge of notarial self-management.
In addition, the Court stated in its sixteen-page ruling that the Competition Council had always been familiar with the legal regulation of the notarial market and notarial tariffs for certification of transactions because it had taken an active part in the process of notarial market monitoring. Following its investigation into the Chamber of Notaries, the Competition Council came up with a new position that was essentially different from its position expressed several years ago in statements by its own representatives, for instance, that notaries could compete only in the quality of their services, but not in price.

Archive symbol Archive

  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • January 2013
  • October 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • March 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • June 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005