NRA

July 17, 2001

Judicial pothole on the road to the European Union

by Maris Krautmanis

Our statesmen keep talking optimistically about Latvia's soon entry into the EU and NATO - all but by tomorrow at breakfast. That would be nice - who wouldn't want to be a wealthy European, excepting maybe the euroskeptics and opponents of globalization organizing protests at world summit meetings. But Latvia still has much to accomplish until this wonderful moment of membership arrives - including also fixing up its branch of judicial power, which is not always inclined to rule in a European fashion.

A critical question which will have to be answered right here at home is of a legal nature - to what extent are Latvia's judicial powers able to be like their counterparts in western countries, is the prevailing understanding of judicial ethics in line with other countries', do the norms approved for internal state use harmonize with those applied elsewhere? There are many examples of court cases, whose significance transcends our national state boundaries and venture into international waters. Such cases as the junked Swedish-ship affair, the Windau cogeneration scandal, the criminal trial of Aleksandrs Lavents, the Lattelekom affair, the possibly brewing Siemens affair and others are no longer just a matter for settling in our own sandbox - foreign observers are paying attention and any missteps on the part of our statesmen can significantly affect Latvia's development and progress toward the EU.

Somebody will have to pay

The judicial branch, first of all, must be separated from the executive and legislative powers, yet in some heavier cases the Latvian state itself has become the defendant, therefore the presence of politicians in the courtroom is unavoidable. This is bad, because politics participating in court cases can create the illusion that politicians themselves may interfere in the competence of the judicial branch…

A low-ranking local government clerk signed papers with a Swedish company to allow a ship to dock. The Swedes supposedly wanted to create a business center on the ship. The ship sat in port for so long until it was junked into pieces. No matter how absurd the story about the onboard business center, which of course was a fraud, the Swedes still hold all the cards: they are suing Latvia for the fact that the ship was junked, demanding a hefty sum - around three million lats. This is why the optimistic, patriotic and heroic statements of our Premier Andris Berzins about fighting and winning in the Swedish ship affair sound inadequate. If no major new evidence appears in this case, the money will have to be paid. The question is - for how much - which will be the subject of haggling, and hopefully Latvia's lawyers will do their utmost so that the fine is minimal.

Some other Swedes who made electricity in Bauska are demanding 8.2 million lats from the state - for losses caused by disturbing the sale of Latvenergo electricity for a double cogeneration tariff. On this affair Premier Berzins is also optimistic and cozy, declaring that nobody is going to be paying the Swedes anything. But things aren't likely to be that simple. It will be seen in the courtroom what papers either side has retained. This calls to mind another case in which attorney Andris Grutups seemed to have accomplished the impossible - he persuaded the court that the letter of intent between Latvenergo and Latelektro Gulbene, which could have served just as well as toilet paper, can actually be compared to a real contract. And the court ruled that Latvenergo had to pay the folks in Gulbene over 500,000 lats for nothing - for supposed losses. Other ugly facts came to the fore in this case - a Latvenergo employee had told the Gulbene utility about the company's courtroom tactics, leaking confidential information. But that's another story…

Who wins and who loses?

But now things are working out rather stupidly - if Latvia were to win against Windau in a similar trial at the international level, the logical question would arise: why did a domestic court ruling on the same type of case go in favour of Latelektro Gulbene? What is the Grutups factor? Why does he always win? It's true that the Premier's optimism on the pending victory in the Windau case currently has no basis whatsoever, it's just for show - this is also a heavy case with one of Sweden's strongest law firms. On this international level the Grutups factor simply no longer applies. If Latvia wins in the trial against Windau, it will become evident how Latvia's judicial branch operates. One just doesn't want to say out loud what our courts have come to…

Cog in the wheel named Lavents

The Lattelekom affair is also a heavy case, which arose from Latvia's irresponsible officials signing the master contract, while those now in power can hardly dispute what happened in the past. Similarly, it is possible that another affair will enter the international arena of law, if Siemens chooses to raise objections to the spoiled border development project.

The criminal justice system is yet another heavy point in which much remains to be done for Latvia to be considered a European state. Even Russia has managed to make more progress in honing its Criminal Code, planning to introduce sworn juries like in the USA. It's a different matter how well the radical reform will succeed.

Yet it isn't normal for people who have yet to face trial, to be sitting for years on end in a pre-investigation isolation cell, while their cases aren't scheduled. The loudest of these cases currently is that of Banka Baltija chairman Aleksandrs Lavents, which is beginning to look like it will last forever. Soon the court may have no article of law to cite, which would justify such a long sentence as that already served by A. Lavents.

It is true that there is still an article calling for a long jail term in cases where the state monetary system is jeapordized, which doesn't sound serious and seems like a Stalin-era type of law.

Regardless of how unpopular A. Lavents is to the people, especially former BB depositors, sitting in prison for years and years without undergoing a trial is a violation of human rights. Lavents is not the only one sitting without a trial - there are many, and what would happen to Latvia if they all submit appeals to the International Court of Human Rights?

The political aspect is also amusing, as the Lavents affair has been politicised since 1995. At that time the party in power, Latvia's Way, took care that the judicial system treated Lavents with the utmost severity. Other bankrupt bankers either evaded judicial sanction entirely, or got away with mild punishments. Now Latvia's Way has to look like the greatest pro-Europe goer, so in vying for seats in the 8th Saeima, the party must find something nice to set it apart from the others. But the Lavents affair could create great international scandals and reproaches from EU institutions. So now Latvia's Way is interested in finally ending this affair, so again will try to pressure the court to work faster. The only problem here is that nothing is moving forward because A. Lavents remains ill.

Authors' rights are also important

Certain other court decisions are also damaging to Latvia's move toward the EU, such as those during the courtroom battle of Moscow's Sojuzplodimport and Latvijas balzams. In all instances the Latvian courts ruled in favor of Latvijas balzams, despite the fact that justice was clearly on the side of the Muscovites - Moskovskaya vodka and Stolichnaya vodka are the Russian industry's property, not Riga's.

Now this conflict has lost its relevance since Sojuzplodimport has bought out Latvijas balzams, but the untrained eye can recognize that the unjust court decisions in favour of Latvijas balzams will not disappear anywhere - they remain in the historical record, and it is only recent history. Mutual relations between the great alcoholic beverage producers are but a trifle - they've resolved their differences, but Latvia's judicial branch has had a rather long shadow cast over it by this affair.

Intellectual property protection is one of Latvia's largest obstructions to integration with the EU. Insufficient trademark and copyright protection often appears as a reproach to Latvia in the statements of EU Commissioners and experts.