LITHUANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Kęstutis Švirinas, Ieva Rimavičienė, Domantė Lunytė and Luka Tamulionytė, Sorainen
• Disputed law: Bosca claimed that Lithuania failed to provide a stable and predictable legal environ- ment and denied his access to justice. • Outcome: The tribunal found Lithuania liable for breaching the FET standard, including denial of justice. However, no damages were awarded to the claimant. The UNCITRAL arbitration tribunal rejected the claim for damages of EUR230 million from the state actions of public authorities during the privatisation of AB “Alita”. 1.6 Reaction to Awards Made Against the State Lithuania has generally demonstrated a pro-arbitra- tion and rule-of-law-oriented approach in its handling of investor–state arbitration proceedings. To date, no adverse arbitral awards have been rendered against Lithuania in investor–state disputes requiring enforce- ment or triggering annulment proceedings. 2. Investment Treaties, Free Trade Agreements and Investment Laws 2.1 Bilateral and Multilateral Investment Treaties As of October 2025, Lithuania has signed 56 BITs. Of these, 30 remain in force following ratification. These active BITs are maintained with a diverse group of countries, including Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Georgia, Iceland, India, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, South Korea, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Vietnam. In line with the the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in the Achmea case, Lithuania has terminated its BITs with Member States, aligning with EU law and co-ordinated efforts across the Union. Additionally, as of 15 October 2025, Lithuania has formally terminated its BITs with Russia and Belarus, reflecting broader geopolitical and legal considera- tions. While there is currently no publicly available indication that Lithuania is actively pursuing new BITs, the geo-
political context suggests that further treaty termina- tions cannot be ruled out. In particular, Lithuania may reassess its investment treaty framework with other jurisdictions, as it did with Russia and Belarus. 2.2 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Lithuanian BITs are generally based on the Model Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Invest- ments, which was approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in 2005. Key provisions of the Lithuanian model BIT include: • Definition of investment: The term “investment” means any kind of asset that an investor of one Contracting Party invests in the territory of the oth- er Contracting Party in accordance with the laws and regulations of the other Contracting Party, and includes, in particular, but not exclusively: (i) mov- able and immovable property and any other rights in re; (ii) shares, bonds and any other forms of participation in a company; (iii) monetary claims or claims for the performance of any act of economic value; (iv) intellectual property rights; (v) business reputation; (vi) any right to engage in economic activities granted by law or contract, including concessions to explore, extract and exploit natural resources. • Ensuring investment protection: Each Contract- ing Party must treat investments from the other Contracting Party fairly and equitably, without discrimination or interference. Investments must receive treatment at least as favourable as that given to domestic or third-country investors, unless exceptions apply – such as participation in regional economic agreements or tax treaties (Article 3 of the Lithuanian model BIT). Issues of expropriation, compensation for losses, transfers and subroga- tion are also covered (Articles 4–7 of the Lithuanian model BIT). • Investment dispute resolution: Before initiat - ing investor–state arbitration in Lithuania, the investor must first attempt to resolve the dispute amicably and notify the host state in writing with detailed information. If the dispute is not resolved within six months and domestic remedies have been exhausted, the investor may submit the case to ICSID (if both states are parties to the ICSID
160 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook