This document discusses alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Lithuania. It provides background on ADR, noting that it is an out-of-court mechanism using a neutral third party like an arbitrator or mediator to help consumers and businesses reach agreements. The document then outlines the history and development of ADR in Lithuania, including the first consumer protection law in 1994 and the establishment of various ADR bodies in 2007. It lists the six institutions that handle ADR in Lithuania and covers principles of ADR such as it being free of charge and conducted through written procedures.

1. Alternative dispute resolution in Lithuania
Since consumer rights exist in reality, there must be a procedure in place to ensure their
effective enforcement. Traditional judicial process is not always an adequate and useful
tool to resolve consumer related issues, therefore there are various ADR schemes
established in the EU. Such an out-of-court mechanism has also been developed in
Lithuania, which enables consumers to seek for a simple, quick, efficient and cheap
settlement of the dispute.
What is an ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution)?
An out-of-court settlement of disputes, or Alternative Dispute Resolution, is an out-of-court
mechanism designed to resolve disputes with an assistance of a third neutral party
such as an arbitrator, mediator or an ombudsman in order to help the consumer and the
trader to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. This scheme is the alternative to
the judicial proceedings, and it operates under the specific rules as an opposite to a strict
judicial scheme.
Under the ADR scheme, the dispute is referred as a collision of legal views or interests
between two parties, once they’ve used the possibility to reach an amicable agreement.
The history of the out-of-court settlement of disputes in Lithuania
The development of the Consumer Protection Policy and the Institutional Framework of
the ADR bodies in Lithuania has started recently. Looking at the development of the
Consumer Policy by chronological order the following key stages may be distinguished:
The first Law on Consumer Protection was enacted in 1994;
In 2001 the Law on Consumer Protection was amended, and the National Consumer
Rights Protection Board established;
In 2003 the Government of the Republic of Lithuania approved the National Strategy for
Consumer Rights Protection and the Lithuanian National Consumer Education
Programme. Considering the results of analysis of the current situation in Lithuania, one
of the key purposes of the Strategy was to ‘aim for establishment of an alternative out-of-court
settlement of disputes mechanism in all the areas of Consumer Protection’.
This aim was achieved on 1st March 2007, when the new edition of the Law on
Consumer Protection of the Republic of Lithuania came into force;
Before the new edition of the Law on Consumer Protection came into force on 1st March
2007, the out-of-court settlement of disputes was only available in a few areas of
Consumer Protection, i.e. communication services, financial services, postal services,
etc. The out-of-court mechanism did not cover all the required areas of Consumer
Protection, and there was no institution established in Lithuania to serve the purpose of
an ADR body.

2. ADR BODIES IN LITHUANIA

3. The Law on Consumer Protection which came into force on 1st March 2007, finally
established the institutional framework of the ADR bodies in Lithuania.
Under this Law, the following institutions have been entitled to provide for the out-of-court
settlement of consumer disputes:
1) The Communications Regulatory Authority of the Republic of Lithuania - deals
with consumer complaints about electronic communications, postal and courier
services;
2)
Central Bank of the Republic of Lithuania - deals with consumer complaints in the
areas provided in the Law on Insurance;
3)
The State Energy Inspectorate under the Ministry of Energy – is entitled to handle
complaints about the Consumer Protection issues provided in the Law on Energy
of the Republic of Lithuania;
4)
The National Control Commission of Prices and Energy - deals with consumer
complaints in the areas provided in the Law on Energy of the Republic of
Lithuania;
5)
Other authorities - entitled to deal with consumer disputes in accordance with the
legislation;
6)
State Consumer Rights Protection Authority - deals with consumer issues which
are not within the remit of the above mentioned institutions.
Information about European Consumer Centre‘s mediation in ADR institutions,
you can find in the table.
The principles of ADR in Lithuania
The consumer may address the ADR body only provided that he/she has put a request
to the trader, service provider;
The out-of-court dispute resolution is free of charge. In some cases provided in the Law
the trader/service provider or consumer is obliged to pay for the inspection or laboratory
tests. However, consumers have to pay for tests or the inspection only in the exceptional
cases, i.e. when ADR bodies do not admit the necessity of such tests, and they are
carried out by consumer’s request. Thus in general, the out-of-court settlement of
consumer disputes under the ADR procedure is free of charge to consumers.
The ADR procedure is written, though it may be performed orally by the decision of an
ADR body (then the dispute parties and other individuals concerned have to be notified of
the case hearing’s date, time and venue);
The out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes is carried out under the adversarial
principle, and the principles of effectiveness and transparency;

4. The ADR procedure is open to public, with the exception of the cases, where it is
necessary to protect the national, official, commercial, bank or professional confidence or
to ensure consumer’s private immunity.
THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ADR
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Low-cost - requiring less resources of the parties
of the dispute, and the state, than going to court.
Non-binding decisions - the decisions
made by the majority of the ADR bodies
might not be implemented (not
compulsory).
Flexible - the dialogue between the parties of the
dispute is essential while seeking resolution in the
ADR.
Custom to seek for redress in courts -
consumers are used to seek for redress in
courts.
Simple - the procedure of approaching the ADR
bodies is comprehensible to ordinary consumers.
Quick - less time consuming when resolving the
dispute.
Reducing the workload of the courts - the
performance of the courts would become more
efficient.
Even the ’bad’ peace is better than ’good’ war
- if the parties reach an amicable agreement, they
will implement it willingly, whereas the decision
made by the enforcement body would set off the
parties.