What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

LithuaniaLiteko

Appeal court annuls €34,001 damages award, sends case back

The Panevėžys appeal court kept the limitation ruling but held the first-instance court never heard the witnesses itself, so the fictitious-invoice and board-purchase disputes must be tried again.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 12 November 2026

Legal & Corporate

Panevėžio apygardos teismas, acting in the name of the Kauno apygardos teismas, has annulled the first-instance judgment in the UAB „Bolle Container LT“ damages caseTeismai and sent it back for retrialTeismai. Nutartis Nr. e2A-556-940/2026 of 2026 m. lapkričio 12 d.Teismai, by judges Alvida Jasaitytė-Pralgauskienė, Loreta Miltenytė and Ignas Totilas, decides the appeals of both the claimant company and defendants S. K. and N. P. against the Kauno apylinkės teismo Kauno rūmų 2026 m. kovo 10 d. sprendimas in case Nr. e2-3147-1245/2026, with O. P. as third party.

The company claimed that its former director S. K., who led it from 2012 m. birželio 25 d. to 2020 m. liepos 8 d., used company funds to pay invoices issued by N. P. for 34 001,05 EurTeismai for works allegedly never performed, and paid UAB „TG baldai“ VAT invoices for 10 990 EurTeismai for goods allegedly bought for a friend. The first-instance court ordered S. K. and N. P. to pay 34 001,05 Eur solidariaiTeismai with 5 per cent annual interest from the filing of the case on 2025 m. rugpjūčio 12 d. until full enforcement, split litigation costs between them, and dismissed the restTeismai: witness statements from the pre-trial investigation alone could not prove wrongdoing over the TG baldai boardsTeismai, which by nature could serve the company's container-finishing work, and a conviction for appropriation does not relieve the claimant of its burden of proof.

The appeal court upheld one pillar of that judgment and demolished another. It agreed, against the defendants' appeal, that the claim is not time-barredTeismai: the first-instance court miscalculated the limitation run but reached the right result, because the 2021 m. rugpjūčio 4 d. civil claim in the criminal proceedings preserved the claimTeismai, the criminal judgment took effect on 2024 m. gruodžio 20 d., and the 2025 m. balandžio 22 d. civil filing kept the total counted time — one year and 27 days plus four months and two days — inside the three-year termTeismai.

But the court held that the essence of the case was never disclosedTeismai: the first-instance court ruled on the reality of the disputed works and the LMDP board purchases from pre-trial witness statementsTeismai without ever questioning the witnesses directlyTeismai and without sufficiently examining the repair-work circumstancesTeismai. Those defects require live witness questioning and a fresh assessment of all the evidence togetherTeismai, which the appeal court cannot perform itself without assuming the first-instance role and depriving the parties of appellate reviewTeismai. It therefore annulled the judgment and remanded the case under CPK 326 straipsnio 1 dalies 4 punktasTeismai, the conditions of 327 straipsnio 1 dalies 2 punktas being met.

For the retrial the court points to the Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo nutartis Nr. e3K-3-89-611/2024 on compensatory interest: the court must assess not only whether the claimed interest is already compensated by the damages but also from when the defendants' duty to pay it arose. Litigation costs for both instances, including costs due to the state, are left for the final judgment. The ruling takes effect on adoption.Teismai

Legal basis is Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodekso 326 straipsnio 1 dalies 4 punktas and 327 straipsnio 1 dalies 2 punktas.

Parties to the Bolle Container damages dispute should prepare direct witness evidence on the alleged works and board purchases for the retrial.

Sources

Nutartis Nr. e2A-556-940/2026 | Panevėžio apygardos teismas | 2026-11-12