STRASBOURG, February 25 (RAPSI) – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held Tuesday that Latvia fulfilled its legal obligations in enforcing a Cypriot judgment on its own territory.

Applicant Peteris Avotiņš, a Latvian national, signed a notarized debt agreement in 1999 with a Cypriot company, governed by Cypriot law. At that point, he agreed to repay his debt of $100,000 plus interest by June 30 of that year.

The company sued for the repayment of that debt in 2003, and a Cypriot court ruled in the company’s favor the following year in the absence of Avotiņš, holding that he should cover accrued interest, costs, and expenses as well.

In February 2005, Avotiņš filed for enforcement of the judgment in Latvia. In February 2006, a Riga court ordered the recognition and enforcement of the judgment, and the registration of a charge against Avotiņš’ property.

In June of the same year, Avotiņš claimed he had only just become aware of both the Cypriot and Latvian orders. He appealed at that point directly to the Riga court.

In January 2007, the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court issued a final judgment upholding the company’s claim, and holding that the Cypriot judgment should be recognized and enforced in Latvia and that a charge should be registered against Avotiņš’ property.

Avotiņš then repaid his debt in compliance with the order, but applied to the ECHR the following month claiming that the Cypriot court’s enforcement of the judgment failed to comply with his right to a fair and timely hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention), due to what he perceived as the failure of the Cypriot court to properly regard his defense rights.

The court found that there had not been a violation of the relevant Convention provision, as Avotiņš had not appealed against the Cypriot judgment.

According to a statement released by the court: “Mr Avotiņš, an investment consultant who had borrowed money from a Cypriot company and had signed a recognition of debt governed by Cypriot law with a clause conferring jurisdiction on the Cypriot courts, had accepted his contractual liability of his own free will: he could have been expected to find out the legal consequences of any non-payment of his debt and the manner in which proceedings would be conducted before the Cypriot courts.”

The court reasoned that Avotiņš lost the right to claim ignorance to Cypriot law due to his own actions.