3. Paragra ph 4.2.

12 of the Agreem ent stipulates that the Customer undertakes to prepare the
object for painting in a timely manner as follow: to clean the road surface and remove
obstacles.
4. Paragraph 4.2.13 of the Agreement stipulates that the Customer must ensure that the
residua / paint of theformer horizontal marking performed by the Contractor on the surface
of the pavement with paint cannot exceed 20% of the area. Jn case of a larger quantity of
previous paints, the Customer has und ertaken to cover the surface painted by the
Executor with the primer GEVEKO THERMO PRIM ER. The Terms and Condi tions of this
Agreement were known to the Parties in advance prior to the conclusion of the
Agreement, i. e. that high-quality coating of the road pavement with th ermoplastic
material (i. e. the provision of the Executor's guarantee for the work performed) on the
existing horizontal road marking pain t is possible only after the Customer has properly
processed the road surface in accordance with the requirements of the thermoplastic
material man ufacturer Geveko marki ngs.
5. As you know, the requirements of Geveko markings, a manufacturer of thermoplastic
paints purchased by you and given to the Executor during the performance of works
under the Agreement, state that proper adhesion of paints to the road pavement
requ i re compliance with the requirements specified in paragraph 4 of the Agreement.

ON THE SPECIFIED DEFECTS AND THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUSTOMER 'S
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT
6. Your Claim of 21.06.2021 and Claim of 16.11.202 1stated that the road marking made
of thermoplastic had deteriorated and comp letely or partially disappea red in the road
section K6 kmS + 680 -11 + 150, in total 2,167m2. (The amount of road marking that
completely disappeared is 957m2. The amount of partially lost road marking is 1210m2).
7. As specified in the Response sen t to you on 05.08.2021, after the Executor analysed
the photographs submitted together with the Claim on 21.06.2021, at all sections of th e
road pavement where pai nting may have been done (no evidence that the photogra phs
were taken at the sections of the road complying with the Agreement between the
Pa rties has been provided), the following has been established: (a) The amount of
previous paint is sign ificantly exceeding 20% of the area. (b) There are clear
indications that the road pavement has not been primed (250 m L/ sq.m.) as provided
for in paragraph 4.2.13 of the Agreement.
8. As we additionally indicate in the Response of 05.08.2021 that according to Biseris JSC,
based on the amount of prime pu rchased by you (360L), this amount could not be enough
for the entire road pavement area where the Executor was maki ng road marking
(processing 3,788 square meters for painti ng area requires 947L). You have not provided
any data negating this. Therefore, it is considered that the Customer has not properly
prepared the road pavement for the work.
9. I t is clear from th e above that cracking of the road paint was captured in the
photographs submitted along with the Claim on 21.06.202 1 only due improper
performa nce of obligations set out in pa ragra ph 4.2.12 and paragraph 4.2.13 of
the Agreement by Neledimpex S.R.L.,i. e. prior to the performance of the work by the
Executor, the Customer
Professional partnership of Telephone +370 5 Entity code.
advocates ZETA LAW 2437555 Email. 300085249 VAT payer's code:
Llepyno str 25A, LT-08108 Vilnius info@zetalaw It LT10000167791 Bank account
LT212140030002658427
Z iff )
did not prepare the road pavemen t so that th e remai ning paint wou ld not exceed 20% of
the area to be painted and/or did not use (used too little or i n a smaller a rea) the pri mer
specified i n the paint man ufacturer's requ irements an d the Agreement, as a result of wh ich
the thermoplastic material of the road pavement did not properly adhere. The Execu tor
was not obliged to perform these works and could not influence their result.
10. According to paragraph 2 of the Agreement, the Customer u ndertook to provide the
Executor with annexes to the Agreement specifying the quanti ties of work to be carried
out, technical specifications, etc. However, the Customer did not provide such documen
ts to the Executor breaching the assumed obligations and assuming the possible risks
arising therefrom. Such non-performa nce of the contractual obligations caused the
Executor to incur higher costs than expected for the performance of the Agreement,while
the Customer may have incu rred lower costs, which resulted in the violation of the
balance of interests of the Parties to the Agreement.

ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNIIATERAL ACT OF 25.05.2021

11. We wou ld like to point out th at prior to the Claim of 21.06.2021 and Claim of
16.11.2021 Biseris )SC has not received any notices of the plan ned defectation of the
works which, as it was fou nd later, was done and described in the Act on poor quality
works of 25.05.2021.
12. Paragraph 8.4 of the Agreement obliges the Parties to have the commu n ication under the
Agreement in writing by using courier services or by facsim ile to confirm the delivery,
however, as i ndicated above, the Customer did not provide this notice to the Executor.
13. Considering that the Executor had the right to participate in the above-mentioned or any
other assessment of the quality of works, and Biseris JSC was not invited in advance, the
latter did not have the opportunity to record the defect course and be sure that namely the
work performed by the Contractor is being assessed, to express their position, objections,
and rely on one's own or impartial experts' opinion. On this basis, the responsi bility of
the Executor can not be inferred from the deficiencies en listed in the Act of 25.05.2021.
In the case of international agreemen ts and in the event of a dispute between the Parties
over the work performed/services provided, it is mandatory to offer the Parties the
opportu nity to assign an independent expert who, according to al l the documentation
received in advance (agreements, man ufactu rer's requirements, character istics of the
equipment and materials used, etc.) and given questions, would answer what defects
have been found, the reasons for and whose fault these defects have occurred, etc.
14. lt should be noted that the said act was concluded exclusively between Neledim pex
S.R.L., as the executor and the custom er - the state institution on the basis of a mutual
contractual relationship, while Biseris ]S C had never been a Party to th is contractual
relationship.
15. It should be emphasised that the Customer accepted all the works from the Executor by
signing the act of tra nsfer and acceptance of the works and reported in full according to
them that he had confirmed the proper fulfilment of the Executor's obligations.

ON THE INDEMNIFICATION FOR DAMAGES

Professional partnership of Telephone +370 5 Entity code:
advocates ZETA LAW 2437555 300085249 VAT payer's code
Llepyno str.25A, LT-08108 Vilnius Emall·info@zetalaw It LT10000167791 Bank account
LT212140030002658427
16. By the Claim of 16.11.2021, the Customer demands indemnification for the losses in
the amount of EU R 34,235.46 which he had incu rred while allegedly elimi nating the
defects of the services provided by the Executor.
17. Notwithstanding the absence of the Executor's liability under the Agreement referred to
above,we also argue that the claim is unfounded in the following respects: (a) No
evid en ce was provided along with the Claim of 16.11.2021 that the works carried
out by S.C. Plastidrum are related to the works carried out by the Executor on the
basis of the Agreement concluded between the Parties. b) You have already stated in
the Cla im of 21.06.2021 that the value of the allegedly poorly performed works
amounts to EUR 24,270.40 and the Claim of 16.11.2021 specifies a higher claim in
the amount of EUR 34,235.46. (c) The Executor has not been informed of the
Customer's decision to choose
S.C. Plastidrum as an executor, without specifying the price, terms, etc. offered by this
entity. (d) Annex No. 4 provided along with the Claim has not been translated into the
language used in the mutual relations between the Parties to the Agreement (Russian or
English) which makes the content of this document incomprehensible. (e) No agreemen ts,
declarations of materials used, work logs, invoices and evidence of their payment,
substantiating the connection of the claimed damages with the Executor's obligations
under the Agreement, have been provided.

ON OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES REFERRED TO IN THE CLAIM OF 16.11.2021

18. You have ind icated in the Claim that the Executor, due to non-fulfilment of its obligations
u nder the Agreement, terminated the performa nce of the works for an unknown reason
on 15.12.2020 and left the territory of the Repu blic of Moldova.
19. By this you have provided not only misi nformati on, as the Executor carried all works on
time accord ing to the volumes ordered by th e Customer in accordance wi th the agreement
between the Parties, but also beca use your specified circumstances are denied by your
signed acts of transfer and acceptance and the absence of any claims prior to the Claim of
16.11.2021. It should also be noted that according to the Agreement the Customer was
solely responsible for the import and export of the Executor's equipm ent from the Republic
of Moldova, i. e. namely, the Customer ordered, prepared and submitted all customs
clearance docu ments related to the import and export of the equipment to/from the
Repu blic of Moldova.
20. lt should be reminded that within the last 5 days before the removal of the equ ipment,
the Customer stopped all works in accordance with paragra ph 4.2.8 of the Agreement,
i. e. for adverse weather conditions, and the Parties agreed to complete the works in the
following calendar year.

ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE DISPUTED RELATIONSHIP AND THE

POSSIBLE JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE
21. The terms 'under civil law acts...', 'we will be forced to apply to court...', etc. in the Claim
of 16.11.2021, may show that the Customer is trying to rely on the law of the
Republic of Moldova and th e jurisd iction of the cou rts of this country.
Professional partnership of advocates
Telephone +370 5 Entity code:
ZETA LAW
2437555 Emal! 300085249 VAT payer's code:
Liepyno str.25A, LT-08108 Vilnius
·1nfo@zetalaw.lt LT10000167791 Bank account
T212140030002658427
 22. We hereby emphasise that in the event of a possible legal dispute initiated by the Customer,
the Agreement and the claims arising therefrom shall be governed by the Agreement
between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Moldova on Legal Assistance and
Legal Relations in Civil Family and Criminal Matters which entered into force on
18.02.1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Bilateral Agreement).
23. Pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the Bilateral Agreement. providing that the Courts of each
Contracting Party shall have competence in civil and family matters where the
defendant is domiciled in its territory, unless this Agreement provides otherwise. They
are compete nt to hear claims against legal entities if there is a management body,
representative office or branch of the legal entity in the territory of this Party, the
Customer's claim against the Executor, i. e. an action before a court is subject to the
jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with the international
law.

24. ln view of the fact that the Customer has improperly performed the Contractual Obligations
due to its own fault, the Executor shall not assume responsibility for the provision of
services of improper quality. The Executor made marking of the road sections prepared
for them by the Customer with its certified equipment in accordance with the instructions
and materials provided by the Customer. In case of obvious circu mstances that the
Customer has not properly prepared the road pavement and has not provided all the
necessary information, the Executor shall have no grounds to assume responsibility for the
deficiencies of the works specified in the Claims.

Jn view of the above,we note that the claims of Neledim pex S.R.L. to Biseris JSC have no legal
and factual grounds and should therefore be rejected.

Jonas Blaze, Attorney at law

Representative of Biseris JSC
Professional partnership of advocates Telephone +370 5 Entity
ZETA LAW 2437555 Email: code:300085249 VAT payer's code:
Liepyno s r. 25A, LT-08108 Vilnius info@zetalaw It LT10000167791 Bank account
LT212140030002658427