“The judge is independent not to isolate him/herself from society, but to serve society in the best way. And it depends on two aspects: professionalism of a judge and prerequisites created for capacity of a judge’s work by legislator and executive power”, wrote Andris Berzins, the President of the State, in his greetings to the Latvian Judicial Conference on the 25th of November.

In the President’s greeting it has been indicated that judiciary is the power which must not be undervalued. In judicial state, society is interested so that proceedings would be fast and qualitative. “If proceedings are slow, it may occur that nobody is interested in quality anymore”, the President pointed out, expressing his hope that the Saeima will be ever more fearless and it will become ever more demanding towards participants of a case; will increase role of a judge as of master of proceedings; will decrease opportunities of purposeless making complaints and number and amount of content of documentation processed by the court.   

Other officials, when addressing judges, also stressed the necessity to accelerate proceedings.   

Ilma Cepane, the Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima, compared judiciary with sailing ship, saying that judiciary became overgrown with several disincentive anchors, in particular issues, and the fact that cases are not reviewed in reasonable terms is one of those anchors.

She indicated that there are courts, in which almost every third case designated for hearing is delayed due different reasons; in which hearing of a case in the first instance hasn’t started in five or even more years; in which opportunities provided in the law are not used to impose fines to participants for intentional delay of proceedings.

However, the Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saeima admitted that legislator and government should undertake certain responsibility as well, as they haven’t obtained amendments necessary to procedural laws, so that participants and witnesses would not delay proceedings, doctors would not issue groundless sick-lists; it would be possible to review more cases in written proceedings, courts would be released from obviously groundless claims, as well as to limit opportunities of appeal in particular categories of cases and to increase amount of fine for participants and witnesses, in they don’t arrive in court hearings due unjustified reasons.

Gaidis Berzins, the Minister of Justice, acquainted participants of conference with amendments to several laws developed and adopted recently, which release courts from execution of particular functions, which are not characteristic for courts, for example, cases about incontestable divorce are transferred to authority of sworn notaries, as well as involvement of regional courts in supervision over activity of sworn notaries and bailiffs is excluded.

The Minister of Justice also revealed ideas being discussed actively at present: transition of cases of particular categories to written proceedings, complete implementation of principle of declared place of residence, role of the court of appellate instance in civil procedure, implementation of advocate procedure in particular instances and reorganisation of institute of assignment sitting in civil procedure.   

G.Berzins also marked continuation of process of modernisation of court work, as well as indicated necessity to implement mediation process. It has been planned to establish more active role of a court in mediation draft law, advising parties to use mediation also in dispute in court proceedings, before case is reviewed on the merits.   

Ivars Bickovics, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also dedicated part of his allocution to the most topical court problem present – number of cases increasing and great load of judges. “It has also been a problem of the Supreme Court, which can’t be solved with good will or resources of the Supreme Court only. Solution for speeding court proceedings up should be looked for in improvement of legal regulation”, I.Bickovics stressed.

The Chief Justice reminded that the Supreme Court doesn’t have right to legislative initiative, but it doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court would stand in passive position of an observer in legislation improvement procedure. The Chief Justice indicated that according to suggestion of the Supreme Court, amendments to the Civil Procedure Law were made, providing review of ancillary complaints in written proceedings, at the same time preserving an opportunity to examine them in court hearings in interests of jurisdiction, if a court considers it to be necessary. The Supreme Court suggested to allow to review cases in written proceedings in cassation proceedings as well, and, extending authority of the Senate, to give it right to decide on the merits, not giving the case back to the court of lower instance, in particular cases.   It was also suggested to refuse from right conferred to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chair of the Department of Civil Cases to submit protest under procedure of supervision about judgments being effective in civil cases, leaving it in authority of the Prosecutor General only.

Decrease of instances of appeal is one of directions of changes in procedural laws. Previously, one has thought more about relief of regional courts as of courts of the second instance, but, as the Chief Justice indicated, it would be important to reduce load of the highest court instance as well. Here, it should be necessary to mark that approximately 50-60 per cent of complaints submitted to the Senate do not correspond to requirements of cassation and review of those has been refused. One should think of how to make cassation complaints more reasoned in term of law, more qualitative in term of content, and the Supreme Court suggests charging only professional lawyers with preparation and submission of complaints.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pointed out that amendments to the Administrative Procedure Law, initiated by the former Saeima, should be brought to a termination. Significant instruments to reduce terms of review of cases are introduced in these amendments, for example, fixing state fee; implementation of pilot judgment procedures; complete transfer of cases about administrative misdemeanours to courts of general jurisdiction; refusal from an opportunity to submit complaints in administrative procedure about the fact, when an institution withholds its answer on the merits.   

The Supreme Court supports implementation of mediation, simplification of litigation procedure, refusing from layout of arguments in court rulings in cases, when they are not appealed against, implementation of register of advocates’ load and improvement of control over validity of issue of sick-lists.

In her turn, Kristine Strada-Rozenberga, the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia,when presenting a pencil to each judge, figuratively compared judges with pencil. The pencil symbolises stability, independent and sustainable existence, also steadiness of character, which may be broken, but not bended. Each pencil must be sharpened at times, and renewal is necessary in practical work of a lawyer. The pencil is associated with awareness that something that is created with pencil may be improved and erased, thus eraser should be kept in hands of society, which would provide an opportunity to erase mistakes of judges. However, although thing written in pencil is erased, its traces are left on a paper; similarly, decisions and activity of judges – although it may be quashed or corrected later, those leave traces in humans’ lives. “At present, when question about simplification and shortening of proceedings, which, inter alia, provides more extensive refusal from motivated rulings and opportunities to appeal against rulings, is updated so much, one should look for power ever more than previously, to keep this sense of responsibility. Cases being heard haven’t become less important for those involved in these cases, so there is no reason to leave more shallow and potentially more unfair rulings in their fatal books”, K.Strada-Rozenberga stressed.

410 judges of total number of 552 judges of district (city) courts, regional courts, the Supreme Court and departments of land books came to the Latvian Judicial Conference on the 25th of November. The Latvian Judicial Conference is institution of judicial self-government, which has been convened by the Council of Justice not less than once a year.  

 

Information prepared by

Rasma Zvejniece, the Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court

E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: 67020396, 28652211