On 14 October, the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court reviewed ancillary complaints filed by the State Joint-Stock Company “Riga International Airport”” (Riga airport) and Joint-Stock Company “Air Baltic Corporation” against the decision of Riga regional court, which recognises the decision of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania regarding determination of claim collateral for the sake of bankrupt Lithuanian airline company FlyLAL. The court satisfied several pleadings filed by parties to the case, listened to parties and announced that the decision will be proclaimed on 28 October at 10.00 o’clock.   

In court hearing held today, the court satisfied two pleadings filed by the Riga airport. One of them was a pleading to annex the decision of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, which rejects application on cancellation of claim collateral, to the case. And, the second pleading was to annex to the case a statement of opinion provided by the Lithuanian Competition Council on the case being heard on the merits in the first court instance in Lithuania. The court also satisfied pleading filed by “Air Baltic Corporation” JSC to annex to the case the copy of minutes of the court hearing held in Vilnius regional court in December 2014. The court satisfied plea of the applicant “flyLAL” to annex to the case evidence on commercial pledges issued by respondents.  

In previous hearing, on 13 May 2015, the court satisfied pleading by “Air Baltic Corporation” JSC to postpone examination of the case because of proceedings in Lithuania regarding cancellation of claim collateral. Riga airport also joined the pleading in the court hearing.

On 31 December 2008, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania upheld the decision of Vilnius regional court to arrest property of the Riga airport and “Air Baltic Corporation” JCS worth of almost 200 million Lithuanian litas (40 765 320 Latvian lats), requested by “flyLAL”, which blamed “Air Baltic Corporation” JSC for unfair competition.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia had previously asked the Court of Justice of the European Union for reference for preliminary ruling regarding how the EU Regulation on recognition of court rulings of other Member State should be construed. Having received preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice, which provided answers to questions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had reason to resume proceedings in the case.

Information prepared by Baiba Kataja, the Press secretary of the Supreme Court
Telephone: 67020396; e-mail: baiba.kataja@at.gov.lv