Latvia, Law and Regulations, Legislation

The Justice Ministry's representatives met with members of Saeima Legal Affairs Committee's Judicial Policy Subcommittee today. Society is very concerned about the length of court proceedings in Latvia, however, there are several myths about it that need to be dispelled, said the Justice Ministry's Parliamentary Secretary Janis Iesalnieks (National Alliance). There has been good progress, and Latvian courts look quite good as compared to the average situation in Europe, believes Iesalnieks. The reducing duration of court proceedings is a result of reforms to the judicial sector, he added.

80% of civil cases are reviewed within one year by first-tier courts, and it takes a few months for courts of appeal to review 65% of all appeals. There is a different situation with administrative cases, many of which are reviewed for longer than six months.

The Justice Ministry's representatives explained that workloads also differed among courts, for instance, courts in Riga had many more cases to review than courts elsewhere in Latvia. Nevertheless, the average length of court proceedings has continued to decrease thanks to the reforms, and the ministry will continue to popularize other forms of settlement, for instance, mediation.

The Administrative Regional Court's Chairman Maris Vigants said at the meeting that several new judges began to work at the court in 2015, therefore the court could review more cases than before, and the average length of court proceedings decreased.

Many of the cases forwarded to the court are from the State Revenue Service, and such cases are very voluminous, said Vigants, adding that reducing the length of court proceedings should not compromise the quality of proceedings.

During the discussions, Saeima member Inese Libina-Egnere (Unity) pointed out that some cases still took very long for courts to review, and inquired whether the system could be changed so that the parties to a dispute could not delay the proceedings. MP Karlis Serzants (Greens/Farmers) said he was baffled why review of a case always depended on the given's lawyer's schedule, and not the court's.