About events

The print version

About events

1 August, 2009

jauns

Deviation of one party from the contract doesn’t release the other party, that hasn’t fulfilled the terms of the contract, from the fulfilment of obligations upon the contract and doesn’t interrupt legal relationship of parties, in relation with which the contract of the Court of Arbitration has been signed, think judges of the Supreme Court. Such decision was made in a general meeting off judges of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate and Chamber of Civil Cases on July 2. It is possible to get acquainted with this ruling in the home page of the Supreme Court www.at.gov.lv in chapter „Court information”. During last period of time the question about power of the contract of Court of Arbitration became more topical, because in contracts of credit of banks and other institutions that offer financial services, with borrowers it has been often included term on rights of the creditor to deviate from the contract in unilateral way, it is, to break the contract in cases, when borrowers break their obligations on the return of the loan in terms, established by parties. While reviewing applications from creditors about issue of writing of execution for execution of verdicts of Courts of Arbitration, in which claims about levy of all amount of the debt have been discharged, in cases, when creditor deviates from the contract in unilateral way, there are situations that judges decline issue of the writing of execution, on the basis of conclusion, that at the same time with unilateral deviation of creditor from the contract of credit, operation of contract of Court of Arbitration also comes to an end.
11 July, 2009

Contract of the Court of Arbitration stays in force in case, when creditor in unilateral way deviates from the contract, in relation with which the contract of the Court of Arbitration has been signed

Deviation of one party from the contract doesn’t release the other party, that hasn’t fulfilled the terms of the contract, from the fulfilment of obligations upon the contract and doesn’t interrupt legal relationship of parties, in relation with which the contract of the Court of Arbitration has been signed, think judges of the Supreme Court. Such decision was made in a general meeting off judges of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate and Chamber of Civil Cases on July 2. It is possible to get acquainted with this ruling in the home page of the Supreme Court www.at.gov.lv in chapter „Court information”. During last period of time the question about power of the contract of Court of Arbitration became more topical, because in contracts of credit of banks and other institutions that offer financial services, with borrowers it has been often included term on rights of the creditor to deviate from the contract in unilateral way, it is, to break the contract in cases, when borrowers break their obligations on the return of the loan in terms, established by parties. While reviewing applications from creditors about issue of writing of execution for execution of verdicts of Courts of Arbitration, in which claims about levy of all amount of the debt have been discharged, in cases, when creditor deviates from the contract in unilateral way, there are situations that judges decline issue of the writing of execution, on the basis of conclusion, that at the same time with unilateral deviation of creditor from the contract of credit, operation of contract of Court of Arbitration also comes to an end.
6 July, 2009

Anita Nusberga has been elected for the post of the senator of the Supreme Court

By the decision of the general meeting ofsenators of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court, dated by July 3, the judge of the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court Anita Nusberga has been elected for the post of the senator of the department. Anita Nusberga has worked as a judge since year 1980. Till year 1990 she had worked as a judge of the Court of present Kurzemes district of Riga city, since 1990 – as a judge in the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court. In year 1998 the 1/st qualification grade was attributed to the judge. The post of the senator in the Department of Criminal Cases was open, as on June 30, the senator Valda Eilande retire.
18 June, 2009

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court accepts vow of seventeen advocates

One more time great number of advocates admitted in the Board of Sworn Advocates on June 18, vowed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and after this they can start working as a sworn advocates. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ivars Bickovics, speaking to new advocates, stressed that advocate in some sense is a free artist, and result of his/her work mainly depends on personal skills and individual work of each person, but this profession still belongs to the judicial system. So the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wished, so that promise given in advocate’s vow would be bread for a way to routine work.
18 June, 2009

Judges receive Marks of Distinction of the System of Justice

Today 17 judges, prosecutors, notaries and advocates, also six ex- and present judges of the Supreme Court, have received Marks of Distinction of the System of Justice. The Mark of Distinction of 2nd grade was presented to ex-senator of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court Astrida Kazarova, ex-senator of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate Ruta Zake and ex-adviser of the Complaints Division, before – the Head of the Division of Rehabilitation, Biruta Puke. The Mark of Distinction of 3rd grade was presented to the senator of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court Peteris Dzalbe, the judge of the Chamber of Criminal Cases Ramona Nadezda Jansone and the judge of Chamber of Civil Cases Raimonds Gravelsins. The Mark of Distinction of 2nd grade has been presented for extremely significant contribution or achievement in development of the system of Justice, strengthening of democracy and rule of law, for extremely significant scientific achievements in the field of law, for extremely significant contribution to creation and formation of policy in the field of jurisprudence, creation of international relationship, development of the case-law and to promotion of professionalism and knowledge of officials belonging to the system of Justice.
12 June, 2009

Delegation of Constitutional Court of Armenia visits the Supreme Court

Today, on June 12, the Supreme Court has been visited by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia Gagik Arutunyan and judge of this court Henrik Danielyan on official visit. They had meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ivars Bickovics, the Deputy of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chair of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate Pavels Gruzins, the Chair of the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate Veronika Krumina and the Chair of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate Valerijans Jonikans. The Chief Justice of the Consitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia Gunars Kutris also participated in the conversation. Guests have visited also the museum of the Supreme Court. The delegation of the Constitutional Court of Armenia arrived to Latvia in official visit to Latvia in order to discuss topical questions of work of constitutional courts of Latvia and Armenia and participate in the seminar „Topical questions of constitutional proceedings”. During the visit representatives of Armenian courts met the President Valdis Zatlers, judges and employees of the Constitutional Court, the Chair of the Saeima Gundars Daudze and teachers of Faculty of Law of University of Latvia.
8 June, 2009

Judges of the Supreme Court meet representative of European Court of Human Rights

During the last visit of the delegation of the Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights, judges expressed a wish, that during the visit of the lawyer of the ECHR Juris Rudevskis in Riga, he could take the floor with reading in the Supreme Court. It was possible to organise meeting today – on June, 8. Mr. Rudevskis gave an opinion about topical questions of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and answered questions of judges about court practice and interpretation of separate Paragraphs of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention). Firstly, in discussion there was stressed dynamic development of the court practice of the ECHR, for example, sentences that were taken 5-6 years ago, can be a part of the court practice that is out-of-date and at present it is very important to follow newest statements of the case-law. Secondly, the meaning of judges of national courts was stressed in application of the Convention. ECHR in its activity follows the principle of subsidiarity – procedural and material-law. Main persons, applying the Convention, are judges of national courts, not judges of ECHR. Firstly, important responsibility in application of the principle of subsidiarity lays on shoulders of judges of court of cassation instance, in order that Convention would be applied correctly. The ECHR interferes only when all national means of protection of rights have been depleted. Secondly, in relation to material-law aspect, the freedom of activity of the ECHR is quite limited, as interpretation of national legal standards, in principle, stands for the competence of domestic courts that know the real environment in the state – way of thinking, mentality – better. The ECHR can interfere only in case, if application of the legal standard was evidently lawless.
1 June, 2009

Division of Complaints has been closed and staff has been reduced

As from June 1, in order to save means, the Division of Complaints of the Supreme Court has been closed. In the future, functions of the division – acceptance of applications of persons and issue of answers – will be distributed among departments of the Senate, chambers and Document Administration Division of the Administration of the Court. Three ex-employees of the division will continue to work as advisers of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate and Documant Administration Division, but labour relationship has been eliminated with two other employees. So the work load of judges will increase, as judges will have to review applications from inhabitants and give answers to them. In year 2008 in the Division of Complaints 1406 applications from persons had been received that were related to different questions on judicial instances of Latvia, and 22 application – on questions of rehabilitation. Due to lack of means as from June 1, eleven employees of chambers and divisions of the Administration were dismissed from their posts. Their duties have been distributed among other employees, whose work load will also increase. In total, number of employees of the Supreme Court has been reduced for 10%.
29 May, 2009

Senators Eilande and Zake finish their work

The Saeima on May 28 took the decision to dismiss Valda Eilande and Ruta Zake from their positions of judges of the Supreme Court. The senator of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate Ruta Zake finishes her work in the Supreme Court as from June 1, but the senator of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate Valda Eilande – as from July 1. Both senators go to retire because of their own wish.
27 May, 2009

Judges of the Supreme Court in general meeting express their opinion on reviewing of criminal cases on frauds

Having discussed court practice in cases on frauds, in order to provide uniformity of application of law standards, general meeting of judges of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate and Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court, managed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on May 22, 2009, made decision, in which it has expressed its opinion in questions of interpretation and application of law standards. During last years number of cases on frauds increases, inter alia, on swindle of immovable property, there is no uniformity in interpretation and application of law standards, so it was topical to make such a research. The fraud is acquisition of strange property or rights for such property, in a way of malpractice or deceit. In decision of the general meeting it has been mentioned that qualification of a crime hasn’t been influenced by the fact, if the fraud has been realised by malpracticing or deceiting the person, or by existence of both features. In the decision there has been expressed opinion related to basic composition and qualification features of a crime. If the guilty party commited two or more frauds, and each of them contains all features of composition of a crime, provided in appropriate parts of the Paragraph 177 of Criminal Law (CL), then crime has been qualified by the graviest part of the Paragraph 177 of CL. It is possible to qualify by qualifying feature provided in Part 3 of Paragraph 177 of CL, it is, great volume, only if at least one of these crimes has been qualified by this part of the paragraph.