LithuaniaLiteko
Appeal fails: finbee.lt fee terms stay void under P2P pay rule
Ruling No. e2A-1414-560/2026 keeps both finbee.lt fee terms void from conclusion: the 47% upfront slice breaches the 25% cap and partial co-investment cannot trigger the 12% exception.
By Taxxa AI OyPublished 6 October 2026
The Vilnius Regional Court has dismissed an appeal by UAB “Finansų bitė”
Teismai, operator of the finbee.lt peer-to-peer lending platform, leaving intact a first-instance judgment that voided both its contract-conclusion fee and its administration fee from the moment of conclusionTeismai. Ruling No. e2A-1414-560/2026 of 6 October 2026Teismai upholds the Marijampolė District Court's default judgment of 16 January 2026Teismai in the lender's debt-recovery claim against borrower ATS.
The underlying loan was a consumer-credit contract of 19 September 2024 for 12,346.46 euros over 84 months, comprising an 11,259.97 euro loan and a 1,086.49 euro conclusion feeTeismai, disbursed electronically through finbee.lt with part refinancing the borrower's debts to TF Bank AB and to the lender itself. After the borrower defaulted, the lender terminated the contract on 21 November 2025Teismai and sued for the unpaid loan, interest, a 982.35 euro administration fee, a 957.19 euro conclusion fee, damages and penalties. The first instance awarded the 10,567.26 euro loan balance but declared both fee terms void ab initioTeismai and cut interest and penalties accordingly; it also held that 229.15 euros of administration fee already collected from the borrower's payments must be returned by reducing the other awards.
The appeal court agreed that the two fees form one systemic remuneration to the platform operator of 2,297.99 euros, of which the 1,086.49 euro conclusion fee is 47 percentTeismai — above the 25 percent ceiling in Article 25(3)(6) of the Law on Consumer Credit (VKĮ)Teismai, in force since 1 January 2023Teismai, under which at least 75 percent of an operator's remuneration must track instalments the borrower actually repays to the lender. The administration fee, at 0.05 percent monthly on the outstanding loan balance, likewise used a base contrary to that rule instead of repaid instalmentsTeismai.
The court rejected the lender's reliance on the Article 25(3)(6¹) exceptionTeismai, which disapplies the proportionality rule where the operator co-invests at least 12 percent of each loan and keeps that share of the outstanding balance, with subordinated claims in bankruptcyTeismai. Although the lender showed a 1,485 euro co-investment in this loan (12.03 percent of the consumer-credit part)Teismai, it admitted it had not invested in every loan on the platformTeismai, attributing this to technical obstacles. Following the Bank of Lithuania's 2015 guidelines, the court held the exception requires investment in each and every creditTeismai — investing in only some loans, even at 12 percent or more, does not qualifyTeismai — so the exception could not save the feesTeismai. The court noted it follows the same approach in three analogous 2026 rulings (Nos e2A-1658-430/2026, e2A-2506-871/2026 and e2A-2019-661/2026). The ruling takes effect on adoption.Teismai
Legal basis: Vilnius Regional Court Ruling No. e2A-1414-560/2026 of 6 October 2026, applying VKĮ Article 25(3)(6)–(6¹) and Civil Code Article 1.80; Marijampolė District Court default judgment of 16 January 2026 left unchangedTeismai.
If you run a peer-to-peer lending platform, tie at least 75% of operator remuneration to instalments actually repaid, or co-invest at least 12% in every loan; partial co-investment does not trigger the exception.