Evidence in Civil Law - Latvia

Front matter

Lex 8) LOCALIS

Evidence in Civil Law - Latvia

Authors: Janis Rozenfelds Daina Ose Martins Osis

Foreword

The basis of Latvian Civil Procedure Law was a civil process law inherited from the pre-independence times (Regulation of the Civil Procedure) — the law of 1864 of the Russian Empire which was adapted to the needs of Latvia as soon as it gained independence in 1918. In 1938 it was renamed to the Civil Procedure Code. During the Soviet occupation since 1940, the Civil Procedure Code was replaced by the Civil Process Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic, and later on in 1964 replaced by the Civil Procedure Code of Latvia which was then regarded as an integrated part of the Soviet Union. This later code which, at least in theory, prescribed inguisitorial process was replaced again by the Civil Procedure Code in 1999 after Latvia regained its independence.

The Latvian judicial system slowly, but steadily recovered and returned to the principles that were established during the first period of independence (1918-1940).

The Civil Procedure Law of Latvia, which was passed in 1999, established civil procedure based on disposition of parties which allows the parties decide on the progress of a civil law dispute by competing before the court on egual terms. Each participant is entitled to appear before the court and give their explanations orally or in writing, directly or through representatives.

The parties may freely choose by which means of proof to substantiate their claims; each party shall prove the facts upon which they base their claims or objections. No evidence shall have a predetermined effect as would be binding upon the court. However, there is a set of legal presumptions of facts in the material law (Latvian Civil Code) which are strikingly similar to those one can find in the Roman law.

The Latvian process has abandoned the principle which was dominant under the pre-war system where certain kind of evidence enjoyed preference, for instance, not allowing the witness testimony to overturn the fact finding based on written evidence. Latvian contemporary process has also abandoned all elements of inguisitorial court system which prevailed during the Soviet occupation (1940-1991). Although formally the law states that the court must establish material truth, still in case of collision between admittance of certain claims by the party and conviction of the court contradicting this admittance, the decisive role must be devoted to the former rather than latter.

The tendency of simplification of certain types of hearings, like abandoning a hearing before the court of the second instance in some legal disputes or introducing of a written procedure, is a characteristic feature of the modern Latvian civil process and its application in practice.

Lex Evidence in Civil Law — Latvia =

J. Rozenfelds, D. Ose & Martins Osis LOCALIS Contents Part linus āda aE E E ines 1 1 Introdücti Oisen oa ei a eased e E rēgu Lee 1 2.1 Principle of Free Disposition of the Parties and Officiality Principle cscs eae bh a ea us asas RE e E asu du 3 2.3 Hearing of Both Parties Principle (audiatur et alter pars) — Contradictory Principles....scssiseessesisssesiisesesreistenereikisevsivocnoresresus eresse 8 2.4 Principle of Orality — Right to Oral Stage of Procedure and Principle of Written Form... cece ie eeretiieevsv soetrissies 10 2.5 Principle of Directness sessies nnu e a ans 10 3.2 Relevance of Material Truth 200.00. eeeeesceeecesecesecsaecaeceeeaeeeneeees 15 4 Evidence m General sinesine nenna i scaeiee 19 4.3 The Minimum Standard of Proof to Consider a Fact as Establīsiēd<sss::sessskisašssessivadsatusvkitēssēvedeeksssša ēnā A ERE 21 44 Means OF Prook oes scesccsiacossescasesedsadiviectagsnsesse ustedes i ER EKAS 21

4.7 A Party Presents in the Proceedings Various Evidence: Witnesses, Authenticated Documents, Private Documents and

Expert OPI ON secsec rrenean sakot Eea E EE E E (bieds 25 4.8 Duty for Parties to Produce or Deliver Evidence. The

Consequences for Breaths icare iee 25 4.9 Duty for Third Persons to Deliver Evidence. Consequences for

Brēācl.:: savees achesncosceestensceatecseeecenaveassvesvonst deonteeteusecvads Piedjkta S 26 5.3 Rules Exempting Certain Facts from the Burden of Proof

5.4 Extent of the Duty to Contest Specified Facts and Evidence

Regulated in the Legal System oo... aaa 32 5.5 The Doctrine of iura novit CULIA.... eee eect ceecnee aaa 33

5.6 The Court’s Duty to Advise the Party if the Facts Claimed by a ii | Contents

5.7 Means of Court to Induce Parties to Elaborate on Claims and Express an Opinion on Any Factual or Legal Matter... eee 5.9 Court’s Initiative to Collect Evidence in Civil Cases (e.g. for the Protection of the Public Interest or in Family Matters) 000.0... sa

5.11 The Right of a Party Charged with the Burden of Proof, Who is

Not in Possession of the Evidence, to Ask the Court to Issue an

Written EvidēiCē::sasssssscap cicessateshi ates perra stiķi stun begs E šo pas ds sāks? osis sāgā The Concept of a Document in the Legal System....i1 iii Distinction Between the Evidential (Probative) Value of Public

and Private Documents 0000... ee aaa WIIMESSES iiss siete datni asti aoe arti asti Duty of a Witness to Testify oo... aaa Taking of Evidence woo... ieee asas Bringing of the Evidence in Court, Appearance of the Witnesses

and Experts (or Other Objects) Before the Court 00... eee aa Deadline for Taking of Evidence 200.0... eeeeeesseceeeeeeneeceeneecsseceeneeenaeeeenees The Hearn i erenneren gan see tas a cep EE neve sesks se dekas ties WITNESSES::: ss dēsti das ond ostas atiet n EE E EEE EEEE NEAS ESEE TEENE OESE TEE aS

UnlawfilEvidence e erae Sands E EEEE E AT E Aea NE

Synoptic TableSr eieo ie ieser uses E E EEEE E aa EEE EE Ordinary/Common Civil Procedure Timeline... eee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeees Basics about Legal Interpretation in Latvian Legal System...

Evidence in Civil Law — Latvia ji J. Rozenfelds, D. Ose & Martins Osis as