The sitting of chairs of departments of the Supreme Court, when examining the issue of the Department of Administrative Cases on the jurisdiction of an application, acknowledged that the administrative procedure is not an appropriate means to check whether judgement in the civil case has been enforced entirely. Matters concerning the regularity of the execution of a judgment in a civil case are settled through means of civil procedure.

The issue arose in connection with an ancillary complaint filed by the Department of Administrative Cases regarding the decision of a judge of Administrative District Court refusing to accept an application in the dispute over the enforcement of a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction. In the event of satisfaction of an application the court should, in essence, impose an obligation on the Register of Enterprises to enforce a judgement in a civil case.

Section 184 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates types of applications a person may file to the administrative court. Among them there is no application for the enforcement of a judgment in a civil case. The actions and decisions of the Commercial Register in enforcing a court judgment do not correspond to the features of either the actual action or the administrative act. They have no independent meaning, as they are subordinate to the enforcement of a judgment in a civil case. Enforcement of a judgment in a civil case is a solution to a private-law dispute, and this legal relationship is not changed by the fact that the enforcement of a judgment must be fulfilled by the issuance of an administrative act. Choice of respective measures of the civil procedure to be used in the particular case depends on the accuracy of the claim brought, namely, on the compliance with the aim pursued in civil case.

By the application filed with the Administrative District Court it was requested to declare the activities and decisions of the Register of Enterprises unlawful, insofar as they have not been amended and recorded in accordance with the judgment of the Collegium of Civil Cases of Riga Regional Court. The Applicant has indicated that the Register of Enterprises has the competence to make changes that would truly correspond to conclusions set out in the judgement.

By the judgment of Riga Regional Court, the divestment transactions of two shares of the limited liability company were declared void, as they were concluded with the aim of reducing the debtor’s property of the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant had begun the debt recovery. It follows from the judgment that declaring void those registries of participants according to which another person became the owner of the shares of said company would prevent the effects of unlawful transactions.

The Register of Enterprises, having regard to the judgment of Riga Regional Court, declared the decisions referred to in the judgment void and unlawful. At the same time, it is indicated that the Register of Enterprises has no legal basis on its own initiative to violate limits of the judgement and declare later decisions to be unlawful and void according to which registers of participants have been added that have not been declared void by the court. Whereas, in the opinion of the Applicant, the Register of Enterprises had to delete the later entries, under which changes were made in favour of third parties.

Decision adopted at the sitting of chairs of departments of the Supreme Court on November 12, 2018
Sittings of chairs of departments of the Supreme Court, in which an issue of jurisdiction of a case submitted by a judge or court is decided, in accordance with Section 50, Paragraph five of the Law "On Judicial Power", shall be convened by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who participates in these sittings having voting rights.

 

Information prepared by
Rasma Zvejniece, the Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court
E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: +371 67020396, +371 2865221