First weeks of 2011 are not indicative of the fact that amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (CPL), which provide increase of security deposit for submission of cassation complaint, would significantly reduce number of cases received in the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court. However, the new procedure created uncertainty about cassation complaints being submitted in cases heard last year.

Pursuant to amendments to the CPL, adopted by the Saeima on the 20th of December, 2010, security deposit to be paid for submission of cassation complaint was quadrupled.  Paragraph One Section 458 of the law states that security deposit is LVL 200 instead of former LVL 50.

Amendments to the law were adopted not providing transitional provisions regarding cases heard in appellate instance until the 1st of January, 2011, when the law became effective. It created uncertainty, which amount is to be paid for cassation complaints submitted in cases heard by the appellate instance last year.

Zigmants Gencs, the Chair of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate, explains that senators of the department have discussed this issue and position of the Senate regarding this issue is following: when establishing amount of security deposit, it is necessary to take into account time of implementation of procedural action. If a cassation complaint is submitted after amendments become effective, namely, after the 1st of January, LVL 200 is to be paid, despite the fact that the case was heard before the 1st of January.

At present, the Chair of the Department of Civil Cases doesn’t make any prognoses, if number of complaints received in the Senate would decrease as a result of increase of security deposit. Z.Gencs believes that participants of the case will use their rights provided in the law more often, asking to release them from payment of the security deposit.

Pursuant to Paragraph Four Section 458 of the CPL, a security deposit is not required to be paid by persons who pursuant to law or a judgment of a court or a judge are exempted from State fees. A court or a judge, by taking into account the material status of a person, may completely or partly release the person from payment of the security deposit.

In case, when the court satisfies cassation complaint submitted by an individual or when the complaint is revoked until the assignments sitting of the Senate, security deposit is paid back to an individual. The individual loses security deposit paid only in case the cassation complaint is considered to be groundless.

As the Ministry of Justice, which prepared amendments to the CPL, indicated in its annotation to draft law, it hopes, by increasing security deposit, partly to cover costs necessary for financing of courts, as well as to reduce load of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate, which will not have to review groundless complaints. Amount of security deposit to be paid for submission of cassation complaint hadn’t changed since the day of adoption of the CPL in 1998. In comparison to amounts of state fees to be paid for submission of a claim in the court of the first and of the appellate instance, security deposit to be paid for submission of cassation complaint was considered to be incommensurately small, which doesn’t guarantee task stated by obligation of payment of security deposit.

 

State fee for appellate complaints – the same as in the first instance   

By amendments to the CPL of the 20th of December, 2010, state fee for submission of the appellate complaints is also increased.

Section 34 of the law states that state fee is to be paid for submission of an appellate complaint according to identical rate to be paid for statement of claim (in case about special adjudication procedure), and in property disputes – according to rate calculated pursuant to the sum in the court of the first instance. Before amendments were adopted, state fee for submission of an appellate complaint made 50 per cent from rate.  

Amount of the state fee was also reviewed regarding civil cases of separate categories. For example, state fee for application regarding infringements and protection of intellectual property is LVL 150 (instead of former LVL 50), for applications regarding an undisputed compulsory execution, compulsory execution of obligations in accordance with warning procedures, voluntary sale of immovable property by auction through the court or for giving a subject of obligation to the court for storage – 2 per cent of the amount of debt, but not more than LVL 350 (instead of former LVL 200). State fee of LVL 50 for application regarding corroboration of the immovable property in the name of the acquirer is established anew. 

In its turn, Section 37 of the CPL, which establishes cases, when state fee is paid back, is extended with provision that in case the court has approved a settlement, 50 per cent of state fee is paid back.

 

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