CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 février 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 177 August-September 2014 Avotiņš v. Latvia (referral) - 17502/07 Judgment 25.2.2014 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Enforcement in Latvia of judgment delivered in Cyprus in the debtor’s absence: case referred to the Grand Chamber In May 1999 the applicant, a Latvian national, and a commercial company registered in Cyprus signed before a notary a formal acknowledgement of debt in which the applicant stated that he had borrowed a sum of money from the company and undertook to repay the sum in question, with interest, by 30   June 1999. The document was governed by Cypriot law and the Cypriot courts had jurisdiction to rule on any dispute arising out of it. In 2003 the company sued the applicant in a Cyprus court for failure to repay his debt. In May 2004, ruling in the applicant’s absence, the court ordered him to pay the debt together with interest. According to the judgment, the applicant had been duly notified of the hearing but had not appeared. In February 2005 the company started proceedings in a Latvian court seeking recognition and enforcement of the Cypriot judgment. In February 2006 the Latvian court ordered the recognition and enforcement of the Cypriot judgment and the recording of a charge against the applicant’s property in the land register. The applicant claimed that he had learnt by chance in June 2006 of the existence of both the Cypriot judgment and the Latvian court’s enforcement order. He did not attempt to challenge the Cypriot judgment before the domestic courts but appealed against the Latvian enforcement order in the Latvian courts. In a final judgment of January 2007 the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court upheld the company’s claim and ordered the recognition and enforcement of the Cypriot judgment and the recording of a charge against the applicant’s immovable property in the land register. On the basis of that judgment a court issued a writ of execution and the applicant complied with the judgment. The charge against his property was lifted shortly afterwards. In his application to the European Court the applicant complained that by enforcing the judgment of the Cypriot court which, in his view, was clearly unlawful as it disregarded his defence rights, the Latvian courts had failed to comply with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. He had alleged before the Latvian courts that the notice to appear before the court in Cyprus and the statement of claim by the company had not been served on him in a proper and timely manner, with the result that he had been unable to defend his case. Consequently, the Latvian courts should have refused to enforce the Cypriot judgment. In a judgment of 25 February 2014 a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1. It observed that the fulfilment by the State of the legal obligations arising from its membership of the European Union was a matter of general interest. The Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court had been under a duty to ensure the recognition and the rapid and effective enforcement of the Cypriot judgment in Latvia. The Court noted that the applicant had not sought to lodge any appeal against the Cypriot court’s judgment of 24   May 2004. The applicant, an investment consultant who had borrowed money from a Cypriot company and had signed an acknowledgement of debt governed by Cypriot law containing a clause which conferred jurisdiction on the Cypriot courts, had accepted this contractual liability of his own free will; he could thus have been expected to acquaint himself with the legal consequences of any failure to repay the debt and with the manner in which proceedings would be conducted before the Cypriot courts. Hence, the applicant had, as a result of his own actions, forfeited the possibility of pleading ignorance of Cypriot law. The onus had been on him to produce evidence of the inexistence or ineffectiveness of a remedy before the Cypriot courts, but he had not done so either before the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court or before the European Court of Human Rights. Regard being had to the interest of the Latvian courts in ensuring the fulfilment of the legal obligations arising from Latvia’s status as a European Union member State, the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court had taken sufficient account of the applicant’s rights. On 8 September 2014 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes