For the first time, the College of Justice has recognized that the decisions of some judges in insolvency proceedings are unlawful. It should be emphasized that the research initiative came from the judges themselves, because the council did not have to worry about the suspicious statements of journalists. The information has now been transferred to the public prosecutor's office, which was examined before four similar insolvency proceedings, but did not propose any matters.
Administrators in the insolvency process have great powers and opportunities in Latvia, but their work has not been followed well for years. The Court already noted in 2014 that the insolvency process in Latvia is not conducive to the national economy. However, both the legislator and law enforcement officials have ignored these facts for many years. As it was, it was avoided to admit that administrators can not conduct questionable transactions without involving judges in schemes. This week, for the first time, the Council of Justice recognized that the decisions of some judges in insolvency proceedings are considered unlawful.
In the summer of 2010, the Saeima adopted a new insolvency law. This has been done because the country has been dying in crisis for two years. Thousands of companies had to declare insolvency, just like people who could not return their loans in recent years. Applications were handled by the courts, which they could not deal with in time.
Parliament unanimously accepted the order, speeding up the process, giving administrators more powers and facilitating overloaded courts. The number of lawsuits dropped, but the complaints against the avalanche against the arbitrariness of insolvency administrators increased.
The insolvency process in Latvia was quick, but costly and ineffective, creditors only recovered a small amount and the current arrangements did not facilitate the recovery of business activities either. Over the past five years, the State Revenue Service has written off more than a billion euros in insolvency proceedings.
In fact, it appears that it is our country's priority to realize an active sale of assets as soon as possible, the liquidation of the company. We can not say that we would have a priority to reorganize or save the company.
Complaints about insolvency proceedings were received by the media, the Foreign Investors Council and the Ministry of Justice. The press reported on incomprehensible decisions by Judge Raimonds Bula in the district court in Riga, the names of the judge of Sigulda Vallija Grebeznieks were known to those who tried outside of Riga. Both lines were created in the insolvency proceedings.
In 2014, the national audit office started an audit of the sector. 12 percent of the cases investigated led the administrator to suspect. The inspectors informed the public prosecutor's office about possible violations of 13 administrators. One of them was Andris Bērziņš. 13 his legal proceedings were handed over to the Sigulda Court, to the right Grebežniece.
It was March 2015 and then in the autumn we received information that the material had been sent to the State Police. Of these, 13 of them had taken 11, which they wanted to analyze further. We have received information about these 11 in the course of time that they do not see the need to start criminal proceedings.
In 2014, the future Minister of Justice, Dzintars Rasnacs, said that the problems of insolvency were exaggerated. At that time, the Council of Justice, in the person of President Ivars Bickovics, wrote to the State Audit Office that everything is in order with the courts to address these issues. This week, the Justice Council, led by Ivars Bickovics, had to admit that this was not the case.
The Board reviewed the expert review of the decisions of judges in insolvency cases from 2008 to 2014. Experts recognize that the judges often acted formally, without paying attention to the circumstances that were indicative of the schemes. It has led to losses and damaged the reputation of the courts.
It's five, four years ago. (NP: This is exactly the stage for which there is also a new study.) Where is the problem? I can now accurately quote and tell about today's views. It is possible that at that moment there was an opinion about the current situation … (NP: And it was different.) No, it is no different. This vision was about the situation at the time and today's views are dependent on today's views, using the amount of information we currently have. It should be noted that this study contains an analysis of 44 cases, than most of these things … Researchers did not have to prove that there were violations. Because of these violations at once, possibly in 2014, it was resolved by investigating protests in most of these cases, all legal errors were corrected at that time. Consequently, the Supreme Court cancels these incorrect or incorrect statements.
The report identifies three judges whose verdicts can not be explained by errors and whose motives will now be judged by the Attorney General's Office – Raimonds Bull, Valija Grebežniece and Judge of the Jolanta Zaškina District Court, who has pronounced sentences in infamous things like Winergy and Peltes.
I fully agree that I made serious mistakes in the statements, I can not. I accept the decisions in accordance with the applicable legislation, when assessing the file, taking into account the time that has elapsed since the decision was taken, I am of the opinion that these decisions are correct and in accordance with the law.
A disciplinary case was initiated 10 years ago against Judge Zaškin in connection with violations of insolvency and legal protection procedures. The disciplinary committee decides court interprets for itself the violations of the law are not found. The Council for the Judiciary has decided to send open facts for investigation into the Public Prosecution Service. The prosecutor has already investigated these cases, because he himself has filed protests with the Supreme Court.
At the moment it would be wrong to express one's opinion or attitude towards the content of the report, because it will then be able to learn and translate, that I have already given the plaintiffs some clues about how to deal with it. to go. So I remember from comment. (NP: There are concerns that this check is rather formal, or can you solve them?) As formal. It is necessary to examine the conclusions of the report, it is necessary to re-examine these cases, since most cases where there had been protests at the public prosecutor's office, but the public prosecutor's office evaluated the violations that were committed but not the motives of possible judged the action of the judges. Now asked about the duty to judge the motives.
"In recent years, these have been literally a few protests filed in insolvency proceedings, and a lot of work has been done to regulate this atmosphere." Of course everything is fine, but the fact that there is a significant improvement in the situation – yes, "says the Attorney General.
The powers of the Insolvency Authority have increased significantly. It not only responds to complaints, but since mid-2008 it also carries out tests on placements, investigates and certifies administrators, they value their reputation. Many of the hardest words from the management grid have also disappeared because they do not want to release their income as determined by their status as public officials.
Our tests show that, despite the fact that most drivers who have publicly reported that they have committed irregularities are no longer working in the profession, while they continue testing, we find that about 80% of the cases have negative opinions. . In our view, these violations are not necessarily formal.
When talking about the characteristics of a group, which resulted in an economic benefit, this group has about five participants – an entrepreneur who needed a certain service. He thinks up his problem and solves it. Of course, the number two is the manager who is the number one figure in the insolvency process of the company, but in order to do something, the group still needs links with the court, which I think I do not say anything new, because the latter study is about that. suggests – there must be some kind of connection with the court. Then there must also be a supervisory institution in this group – we do not see it for a decade to the past – yes, you can ask a lot of questions why you did not respond at the time. Some members must also be brought to this institution. But most of all it was certainly a form of inactivity in situations where it might be necessary to take active action. Fifth, such things without such a political roof can not last long.
First of all, responsibility must be borne by the prime ministers, and secondly by the Ministers of Justice. We have been leading this sector for 12 years, but this industry has started at a time when the national union of ministers of justice did not lead … (NP: But they have been your colleagues for your party for years.) I think that we are divided into this responsibility.
A judge will be prosecuted for a deliberately unlawful judgment or decision, but even if such a crime were to be proven, the sentence would already be barred. A conviction would, however, be the only way to dismiss judges, because disciplinary proceedings against these events can no longer be instituted.