WIDEN Latvia Case Brings New Supreme Court Case Law on Foreign Arbitral Award Recognition and Enforcement

February 25, 2026

The work of WIDEN Latvia lead partner and attorney at law Jānis Ešenvalds and attorney Kārlis Ešenvalds representing a client acting as a complainant in a case on the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration court decision in the Republic of Latvia has reached a successful conclusion. Notably, the Supreme Court of Latvia expanded the case-law as part of this dispute (case No SKC‑197/2026).

With its 24 October 2025 decision, Latgale Regional Court ruled not to amend the first-instance decision and to uphold the client’s claim concerning the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration court decision in Latvia.

The arbitration court ruled that monies were to be collected in the complainant’s favour. The respondent refused to comply with the arbitration court decision in good faith, stating that it had not approved the sole arbitrator appointed by the complainant, as a result of which a dispute on the recognition and enforcement of the foreign decision in Latvia was heard at a Latvian court of general jurisdiction.

The respondent pointed out that neither the original of the arbitration agreement nor its notarised copy had been submitted. The WIDEN Latvia attorneys contested these statements by the respondent, arguing that submitting the originals in paper form was not possible because the parties had concluded the agreement by exchanging e-mail messages. Furthermore, concluding an agreement in such a manner is to be considered in line with Article II(2) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958, stating that: ‘The term “agreement in writing” shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams.’

In the reasoning part of its decision, the Regional Court concurred with both the argumentation of the first-instance court and the opinion of the WIDEN Latvia attorneys regarding the submission of the original of the arbitration agreement. The Regional Court noted that if a contract is concluded by its exchanging‑ e-mail messages with scanned and signed contract documents in PDF and JPG formats, it simply does not exist in paper format. However, it does constitute a written contract that contains an arbitration clause, as per the written form requirements set by Article II(2) of the New York Convention and Article 1(2)(a) of the European Convention. Such contract practice existed prior to the matter in question and has been viewed as acceptable.

The respondent tried to hold contradictory positions, stating on the one hand that no arbitration agreement had been concluded, while on the other hand pointing out that the arbitrator had been appointed in violation of the arbitration agreement. The WIDEN Latvia attorneys brought to the court’s attention the fact that the respondent also actively participated in the arbitration proceedings, trying to select their own arbitrator and admitting the conclusion of the arbitration agreement in multiple documents, which meant that the allegations of the arbitration agreement not having been concluded were to be rejected as baseless.

Even though the respondent asserted that as part of the arbitration proceedings, it had not approved the sole arbitrator appointed by the complainant, the respondent never appointed an arbitrator of their own. The WIDEN Latvia attorneys highlighted the circumstance that the parties had agreed to resolve any legal affairs arising from their contracts using the law of the United Kingdom. Latgale Regional Court pointed out the fallacy of the respondent’s opinion that the procedure established in the laws and regulations of the United Kingdom was only applicable in the absence of an agreement on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator, noting that in order to use the arbitrator procedure set in those laws and regulations, one had to conclude that the procedure set by the arbitration agreement ‘was not complied with’ rather than ‘could not be complied with’. The Court explained that the purpose of adopting and applying the provisions of Section 17 of the UK Arbitration Act was to prevent the other party for delaying the arbitration proceedings.

Finally, as part of its 12 January 2026 executive session in case No SKC‑197/2026, the Senate ruled to initiate cassation proceedings because the Senate discovered an erroneous statement in the Regional Court’s decision, in that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration court ruling may be challenged with a procedural appeal at the Supreme Court, indicating that a review of the wording Section 641(1) and Section 649(5) of the Civil Procedure Law and the interpretation of its grammar lead to the conclusion that matters pertaining to the recognition of arbitration court decisions are to be deemed finally resolved once heard by courts of two instances. As a result, the Regional Court decision that satisfied the client’s claim was upheld and took effect.

On multiple prior occasions, the Supreme Court had already pointed at the impossibility of challenging regional court decisions in cases of this category. Specifically, the provisions of Section 641(1) of the Civil Procedure Law only applies to claims for the recognition of the rulings of foreign courts — state courts, not arbitration courts, and it is only in the cases of that category that regional court decisions can be challenged in the Supreme Court with the submission of a procedural appeal. Previously, the full panel of the Senate already provided an interpretation of these provisions, such as in its 1 February 2012 ruling in case No SKC-953/2012 (C32262711), pointing out that matters pertaining to the recognition of a foreign arbitration court ruling are deemed to have been finally resolved if heard by courts of two instances. The Senate made the same conclusion in its 12 April 2019 executive session in case No SKC-859/2019. Now, however, it has gained the status of case-law, obligating every court to use it.