Pöördumine

Saatja: Rihards Gulbis <[email protected]> Teema: Request for information: Reasoning behind refusal of a cassation (revision) appeal Dear Sir or Madam, The Constitutional Court of Latvia has initiated a case related to a provision of the Civil Procedure Law of Latvia which provides that in civil procedure the Senate’s (the Supreme Court`s of Latvia) decision to refuse initiation of cassation proceedings may be drawn up in the form of a resolution, i.e., without giving reasoning behind it (further information on the respective case in the Constitutional Court available here<http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/press-release/a-case-initiated-with-respect-to-a-norm-that-provides-that-in-civil-procedure-the-senates-decision-to-refuse-initiation-of-cassation-legal-proceedings-may-be-drawn-up-in-the-form-of-a-resolut/>). In practice most of the refusal decisions of the Senate in civil cases are made by giving the following short reasoning: “there are no obvious grounds to deem that the outcome of the case included in the appealed judgment is incorrect and that the case to be examined has a significant meaning for ensuring unified case-law or further development of the law”. It corresponds to the refusal grounds stated in the Civil Procedure Law of Latvia. From the circumstances of the abovementioned case and previous case-law of the Constitutional Court of Latvia it can be concluded, that the key issue of the case will be a necessity of reasoning and its extent in the decision of the cassation court, when it refuses to accept a cassation complaint. This issue apparently will be examined in the light of the right of access to the courts, on the one hand, and the Supreme Court’s role to deal only with matters of the requisite significance, on the other hand. Recently I was invited by the Constitutional Court of Latvia to provide an opinion on the abovementioned case. As the key issue raised in the case is common to many European jurisdictions and supreme courts, I would appreciate very much, if you could provide brief information on reasoning behind the refusal decisions of your court in civil cases, should there be such or similar decisions (e.g. on inadmissibility of the complaint about the judgment of the lower courts). In particular, the following information is of great interest: 1. Does your court decide on admissibility of the cassation / revision (or alike) complaint in civil cases by applying certain filters related to substance of the complaint (e.g. whether adjudication of the case is necessary to ensure unified case-law)? 2. If your court decides that complaint is inadmissible / has to be rejected – do these decisions comprise reasoning of the court and how extensive it is (only reference to the provision of Law / general conclusion, that complaint does not meet certain requirements / reasons, why the most significant grounds given in the complaint are insufficient / argumentation regarding every argument raised in the complaint). I would also appreciate very much, if you could provide examples of the refusal decisions (decisions on inadmissibility of the complaint) made by your court, or of reasoning behind these decisions (translation is not necessary). I would be very grateful to receive the abovementioned information in brief form and the examples of the decisions / reasoning by the 15th of November. Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards Dr. iur. Rihards Gulbis Scientific Adviser Department of Civil Cases The Supreme Court of Latvia (Senate) Phone: +371 67020318 E-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Web: http://at.gov.lv/en/ [cid:[email protected]]