The Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court

The print version

Plan of distribution of cases, 2018


1. Cases filed with the Department of Civil Cases are distributed according to the alphabetical list, giving individual sequence number to each judge:

Judge Anda Briede – No.1

Judge Intars Bisters – No.2

Judge Vanda Cirule – No.3

Judge Anita Cernavska – No.4

Judge Inara Garda – No.5

Judge Valerijans Jonikans – No.6

Judge Lubova Kusnire – No.7

Judge Aivars Keiss– No.8

Judge Inta Lauka-No.9

Judge Valerijs Maksimovs – No.10

Judge Zane Petersone – No.11

Judge Normunds Salenieks – No.12

Judge Marika Senkane – No.13

Judge Aigars Strupiss – No.14

Judge Anda Vitola – No.15

Judge Marite Zagere – No.16

Judge Edite Vernusa – No.17


2. Cases received in the Department of Civil Cases have been given for review according to order of receipt thereof, if possible:

2.1. Particular distribution of cases has been carried out in the Department of Civil Cases for such categories of cases:

- Adjudication of cases under cassation procedure;

- Review of ancillary complaints;

- Adjudication of cases due to protests filed under Section 483 of the Civil Procedure Law.

2.2. Priority in adjudication of cases:

- Claims on reinstatement;

- Invalidation of an employer’s notice;

- Recovery of salary;

- Disputes regarding protection of children’s rights;  

- Cases being adjudicated for a long time;

- Other justified reasons for accelerated adjudication of a case (for example, applications by parties to the case to avoid increase of losses, observing age, state of health of parties to proceedings, etc.);

- Cases in which protests are submitted under Section 483 and 484 of the Civil Procedure Law, observing guidelines of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court;

- Cases on invalidating decisions of meeting of  capital company's members (shareholders).

3. The composition of the panel of judges of the court in court hearings and written proceedings has been determined by the Chair of the Department, appointing the reporting judge at the same time. The judge, who prepared the case for review in assignment sitting, adjudicates this case also in cassation proceedings, if possible.

Depending on general work load, the Chair of the Department participates in assignment sittings and written proceedings, and he/she may also be a reporting judge in cases being adjudicated.

3.1. Cases reviewed in expanded composition of the court, have been adjudicated by at least nine judges, appointed by the Chair of the department. The reporting judge in the expanded composition of the court usually is the judge, who was the reporting judge in the court hearing or in written proceedings in the panel composed of three judges. If the case is assigned for review in expanded composition of the court by the decision of the assignment sitting, the reporting judge usually is the one, who prepared the case in assignment sitting. Judges, who had adopted the respective decision to assign the case for review in expanded composition of the court, should participate in expanded composition of the court, if possible; if any of these judges cannot participate in hearing due to objective reasons, he/she is replaced by another judge. 

3.2. In case of long term absence of a judge (due to illness, business trip, etc.), the case is assigned to another judge according to sequence, observing the load, usually to the judge,   who has specialized in respective field of law (Item 7).


4. Composition of the court to review cases in assignments sittings, written proceedings and court hearings has been determined in a way to ensure equal load to judges working in the department. Compositions of the court have been established, ensuring fluidity.


5. The foregoing order of distribution of cases may be altered by the Chair of the department in following cases:

  5.1. The case due to its particular complexity has to be assigned to the judge, who has specialized in the respective field of law, if possible;

  5.2. Due to excessive work load of the judge;

  5.3. Due to insufficient work load of the judge;

  5.4. Due to termination of judge’s office;

  5.5. Due to inability of the judge to discharge duties due to temporary absence;

  5.6. If there are circumstances, which may serve as grounds for recusal or removal of a judge (Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Law);

  5.7. If the assistant to the reporting judge is in close degree of kinship with a party to the proceedings, or there exist other circumstances which could cause doubts about impartiality of the court.


6. If circumstances stated in Item 5 exist, the reporting judge may be replaced during court proceedings as well.


 7. To implement requirement included in Item 5.1 of the plan of distribution of cases, following fields of specialization are determined:

Judge Anda Briede – property law, inheritance law;

Judge Intars Bisters – property law, law of obligations;

Judge Vanda Cirule – trademark protection, copyright protection, law of obligations;

Judge Anita Cernavska – law of obligations, labour law, living accommodation rent law;

Judge Inara Garda – family law, law of obligations;

Judge Valerijans Jonikans – labour law, performance of obligations through the court;

Judge Lubova Kusnire – family law, title to property of apartments, living accommodation rent law;

Judge Aivars Keiss – property law;

Judge Inta Lauka – civil procedural law, law of obligations;

Judge Valerijs Maksimovs – law of obligations and cases related to insolvency proceedings;

Judge Zane Pētersone – intellectual property, law of obligations;

Judge Normunds Salenieks – civil procedural law, property law;

Judge Marika Senkane – civil procedural law, insurance;

Judge Aigars Strupiss – commercial law, law of obligations;

Judge Anda Vitola – cases concerning legal protection and insolvency procedure, law of obligations;

Judge Marite Zagere – law of obligations, labour law;

Judge Edite Vernusa – inheritance law, property, law, civil procedural law.

Observation of the specialization depends on the work-load and other conditions.


8. The Chair of the court hearing is determined by judges of particular composition of the court upon mutual consent. Hearing is usually conducted by the Chair of the Department if he or she is included in composition of the court.