The aim of the article is to answer the question if accession can be maintained as a separate and independent mode of acquisition and loss of ownership in the Lithuanian civil law. Although this mode takes its beginning in the Roman law and is well-known in other European jurisdictions, the situation in Lithuania is less clear because the accession is almost totally absent from the legal texts of the Lithuanian positive civil law, court decisions and legal doctrine as well. Thus, (...) a legal analysis confined to the linguistic analysis of law would come to the conclusion that Lithuanian law functions without the accession. Nevertheless, a deeper analysis of the Lithuanian Civil Code and case law reveals a different view. To respond to the posed question, the article analyses the functions and the concept of accession as one of the aspects of a broader property law principle, namely, of unity. The essence of the latter is that one thing presupposes one right of ownership and it is inconceivable to hold several full ownerships into the same thing. In this respect, accession plays an important role protecting the legal interests of the third parties. Also, the application of accession in other continental European countries and the solutions proposed by the Draft Common Frame of Reference is analysed. Further, the analysis turns to the Lithuanian positive law and case law. In spite of the lack of express reference to the accession rule, careful analysis shows that, in fact, the accession rule is established in the Lithuanian Civil Code, albeit it could be found in various forms and in several different units of the Civil Code. Also, Lithuanian courts routinely apply the rules on accession in practice. Even more, the analysis shows that the Lithuanian Civil Code is not devoid of the rules of accession, but, on the opposite, this legal institute is over-regulated and, in part, incoherent. This quality can be explained as a consequence of an imprecise legal drafting. The final conclusion is drawn that accession is a separate and fully working legal institute of Lithuanian civil law, although to reach its coherent application a certain interpretative position should be adopted. (shrink)

The principle of publicity is one of the fundamental principles of property law: property rights should be made public in order to inform third parties about the existence of the property right and its holder and thereby to foster legal certainty and efficiency. The publicity of ownership in immovable property is achieved through registration of ownership in the public register. However, the problem arises because of the unavoidable discrepancies between the data contained in the public register and the factual situation. (...) Different states choose different models to solve the practical problems arising out of the aforementioned discrepancies. On the one hand, Lithuania belongs to the group of states that implement the so-called declaratory system of registration, i.e. the transfer of ownership is based on an agreement or other legal grounds and the registration is not mandatory but provides the transfer with a third-party effect. This can be seen as a proof of priority of a factual situation over the registered data. On the other hand, Lithuanian laws provide the data of the register with some positive reliance, i.e. third parties are not only protected from claims arising out of unregistered rights (negative reliance), but they can also rely on the transcripts in the register. This is especially true in the case of bona fide transferee of immovable property which with some minor exceptions acquires ownership even from a non-owner, if the latter honestly relied on the data of the register. This regulatory framework is further adopted and transformed by the case law of the Lithuanian courts. The analysis of the latter shows that courts are inclined to rely more on the factual situation and easily deny the meaning of the registered rights. In various ways, the concept of the bona fide transferee is restricted and there are instances of positive duties ascribed to them. Besides, the existing case law demonstrates equivocal attitude towards the legal effects of registered data. Such tendencies of case law may hinder the rule of positive reliance and cause greater legal uncertainty. (shrink)

Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases of 11 March 1996, which was intended to protect the interests of the makers of databases, determined that databases could be protected by double rights: copyright and sui generis right. The article first of all analyses what persons are entitled to be acknowledged as holders of copyright and sui generis right in respect of a newly created database. As the issue of the owner of (...) copyright is not regulated by the 1996 Directive, this is determined by the application of national provisions. Pursuant to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Lithuania, the owner of copyright may mean, depending on the situation, a natural person – the author of a database or a group of authors, the holder of the right to a collective work, or an employer. The analysis presented in the articleindicates that predominantly it is the author (authors) of a database who is held to be the owner of the copyright. Courts tend to interpret the rule concerning the transfer of copyright to the employer in a restrictive way; besides, in accordance with the specifics of the Lithuanian legal regulation, economic rights are transferred to the employer only for the period of 5 years. The category of collective work is of a subsidiary character and may be applied only in exclusive cases. Therefore, when a database is created upon the commission of another person, including the employer, the customer is expected to form a written agreement where the transfer of economic rights to the customer is clearly defined. (shrink)

This article aims to analyze the legal regulation of performers’ rights in Lithuania. Analysis is divided in two parts: the first part analyses performers’ economic rights by comparing them to the authors’ economic rights and the legal regulation of performers’ rights in foreign countries; the second part of article focuses on the different content of performers’ economic rights due to the mean of fixation of performance (unfixed performance, performance fixed to the phonogram, audiovisual fixation of performance). Analysis of the Lithuanian (...) legal regulation on performers’ economic right has shown that although Copyright Law of Lithuania in general complies with international and EU acts governing performers’ rights, four main fields of legal regulation need to be revised. Firstly, Copyright Law should provide that when concluding an agreement concerning an audiovisual fixation of his performance with a producer of audiovisual work the performer transfers his exclusive rights to the producer, the performer shall retain an unwaivable right to receive an equitable remuneration for every transferred exclusive right. Secondly, the legal definition of phonogram published for the commercial purposes should be provided in the Law on Copyright of Lithuania. (shrink)

Article deals with the situation of enforcement of intellectual property rights in Lithuania after the implementation of 2004 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. First, the authors outline the importance of the proportionality principle which is embedded in the text of the directive, but sometimes may be overlooked because of the rhetoric openly orientated to right holders. Then, the legislative changes in Lithuania’s intellectual property laws (...) and tendencies in case law are analyzed. The main findings of the research show that despite considerable changes in Lithuanian laws, the situation in case law was not in fact influenced. (shrink)