Case No. SPC-26

On the legality of the enforcement of an arbitration court judgment.

Riga, 8 May 2002

Decision

The Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia in the following composition – chairman of the hearing, senator Z. Gencs, senators R. Zake and I. Fridrihsons -; with participation of a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General office of the Republic of Latvia A. Meistere, in an open court hearing tried the protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia regarding the decision by Riga Latgale Regional Court of 1 February 2002 concerning Arturs Licis` application on the issue of a writ of execution for enforcement of the arbitration court judgment.

Having heard a report by senator Z. Gencs and explanations by a prosecutor A. Meistere, who is asking to sustain the request of the Prosecutor General, the Senate

established

In 17 January 2002 Arturs Licis brought a claim in the arbitration court «ABBA» on the collection of debt in the amount of LVL 19 380 from the limited liability company «Re- dikss pluss».

Pursuant to the decision of 22 January 2002 by the arbitration court the security measures for this claim were applied: movable property of LLC «Redikss pluss» and monetary assets in the shop at Artilerijas Street.2, Riga, were seized.

In 30 January 2002 Arturs Licis submitted to Riga Latgale Regional Court his application on the enforcement of 22 January 2002 decision by arbitration court, asking to issue a writ of execution.

By Riga Latgale Regional Court decision of 1 February 2002 it was decided to issue a writ of execution regarding enforcement of arbitration court`s «ABBA» decision of 22 January 2002.

The protest on the above mentioned decision of Riga Latgale Regional Court was submitted by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia, thus asking to cancel this decision and forward the case for a new trail by the same court, but in another composition, due to wrong application of Article 536, part one of Civil Procedure Law , because LLC «Redikss pluss» was not given a chance to submit to the court the evidence, that would state grounds for refusal to issue a writ of execution. The court has not clarified whether LLC «Redikss pluss» was duly and properly informed regarding submission of application on the enforcement of the arbitration court judgment .

Besides, the protest points to the violation of Article 486 of Civil Procedure Law, because there is not a notification regarding the establishment and operation of the arbitration court under name «ABBA» in the records of the Ministry of Justice.

Having examined the case materials and considered the arguments of the protest, the Senate came to a conclusion that a court decision on the issue of a writ of execution shall be cancelled and the case shall be forwarded for a new trial to the same court, but in another composition.

Article 533, part two of the Civil Procedure Law provides enforcement of arbitration court judgments, by asking the regional (city) court according to the location of the arbitration court to issue a writ of execution.

In accordance with Article 534, part one of the Civil Procedure Law – a party, who is asking to issue a writ of execution, shall, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Article 519 of this law, inform the party against which the enforcement of the arbitration court judgment is claimed.

Article 534, part two, point 3 of Civil Procedure Law states that evidence shall be enclosed to the application on the issue of a writ of execution, proving that the party, against which the enforcement of the court`s judgment is claimed, was notified on that,

It can be seen from the materials of the case that the evidence proving that SIA «Redikss pluss» was informed regarding submission of application on the enforcement of arbitration court judgment according to the procedure provided by the law is not enclosed to the application of Arturs Licis on the issue of a writ of execution.

Article 486, part three of Civil Procedure Law states that an independent arbitration court may be established by a legal person, which notifies the Ministry of Justice on such establishment. It has not been done in this case. If this procedure is not complied with, the establishment and operation of an arbitration court cannot be deemed as legal. Thereby there is a ground to refuse issue of a writ of execution for enforcement of the arbitration court judgment as set forth in Article 536, part one, point 3 of Civil Procedure Law.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned, the Senate considers, that the court, by making a decision on the issue of a writ of execution, has substantially violated the procedural rules .

Pursuant to Article 448, point 2 of Civil Procedure Law, the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia

ruled

To cancel the decision of 1 February 2002 by Riga Latgale Regional Court and to forward the case for a new trial to the same court in another composition.

  

Chairman of hearing, senator Z. Gencs

Senators R. Zake

I. Fridrihsons

 
 
 
SIA "Baltijas starptautiskā šķīrejtiesa"
Visas tiesības aizsargātas. Bez atļaujas pārpublicēt aizliegts.
tālr. 7240270
arbitration@arbitration.lv