Question about non-actionable forced execution of obligations in Latvia has not been researched much, thus different trends, while solving cases of such character, have been observed. In order to form uniform practice of making of court decisions and avoid imperfections, the Supreme Court has summarised and analysed conclusions of the case-law in review of such cases. The research was made by the Division of the Case-law together with Department of Civil Cases of the Senate.

Non-actionable forced execution of obligations is a separate kind of litigation with its own peculiarities and rules that are typical only for this kind of litigation. It is reduced and accelerated proceeding, in which no objections of the debtor have been taken into account. Decision has been made about the claim in the framework of written proceedings, only on the basis of documents, mentioned in Paragraph 404 of the Civil Procedural Law (further - CPL), submitted by a creditor.

Main attention in the research of the Supreme Court has been paid to non-actionable forced execution of obligations in agreements about obligations that have been provided with public mortgage or commercial lien (Item 1 of the Part 1 of Paragraph 400 of the Civil Procedural Law) and upon term contracts, approved by the notary, about payment of money or recovery of movable property (Item 2 of the Part 1 of Paragraph 400 of the CPL).

The research was grounded on decisions of district (city) courts in litigation about non-actionable forced execution of obligations, and also on judicial conclusions of the Senate of the Supreme Court that form the case-law in this specific kind of litigation. Basically, the case-law for 2008 and 2009 has been made, at the same time turning the attention to the fact that legal standards about non-actionable forced execution of obligations have been improved constantly according to their sense and task.

While analysing the case-law, the Senate made a conclusion that uncertainties in courts are often made by the question, if basic obligation has been given to non-actionable forced execution of obligations as per Item 1 of Part 1 of Paragraph 400 of the CPL, or accessory obligation, it is, mortgage or commercial lien, that is a basis for execution of this obligation.

In many cases there has not been taken into account a peculiarity of this litigation – to evaluate the claim and documents attached to it only according to formal criteria of non-actionable forced execution of obligations, defined in the CPL, not analysing material legal basis of obligation, which is a characteristic requirements for litigation. In practice there has been observed a trend that judges motivate decisions made by evaluation of material standards, which is not required in this kind of litigation.

It is possible to get acquainted with compilations of the case-law in the home page of the Supreme Court www.at.gov.lv in chapter Court information/Compilations of Court Decisions. Conclusions made in research are permissive for courts and it will provide uniformity in application of legal standards.

Information prepared by

The Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court Rasma Zvejniece

E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: 67020396, 28652211