LATVIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Edward Kuznetsov, Marine Legal Bureau
Outside the scope of the international regime, limita - tion periods are governed by Latvian domestic law (contract and tort), with the applicable period depend - ing on the legal basis of the claim and the factual matrix. Time limits may be extended by agreement in accord - ance with the governing regime and general princi - ples of Latvian law. Suspension/interruption may also arise in limited circumstances under domestic law (eg, procedural steps or acknowledgement), but this is fact-dependent and should be assessed on a case- by-case basis. 5. Maritime Liens and Ship Arrests 5.1 Ship Arrests In practice, ship arrests are effected under domestic law, primarily the Maritime Code, read together with the Civil Procedure Law (interim measures/attach - ment-style relief and enforcement mechanics). Latvia has not formally denounced the 1952 Conven - tion on the Arrest of Ships – there is no notification of withdrawal in international registers. However, national law and practice predominantly apply the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships, the provisions of which are reflected in the Maritime Code and serve as the basic standard for determining mari - time claims and ship arrest mechanisms. The 1952 approach, although not formally repealed, is in fact not used as a basis for arrest in modern Latvian prac - tice. Accordingly, arrest applications are assessed by Latvian courts by reference to the Maritime Code and procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Law, with reference to the 1999 Arrest Convention. 5.2 Maritime Liens Latvian law differentiates clearly between maritime liens (rights in rem arising by operation of law and attaching to the vessel) and maritime claims (claims that may ground arrest, but do not necessarily confer lien status). This distinction is reflected in the Maritime Code and is material for priority and (in some cases) survival against change of ownership.
Recognised maritime liens typically include (in sub - stance) the traditional categories: • crew wages and other seafarers’ employment- related claims; • salvage; • certain port, pilotage and similar public/operational dues; and • certain damage claims arising from the opera - tion of the vessel (subject to the Maritime Code’s formulation). Latvia recognises privileged treatment of crew injury/ death-related claims within the protective seafarers’ regime; whether a particular indemnity for crew injury qualifies as a maritime lien (as opposed to an arresta - ble maritime claim) is assessed under the Maritime Code’s lien provisions and the facts (nature of the claim, basis and claimant). Latvian law recognises charterparty liabilities (eg, unpaid hire, damages for breach, off-hire disputes) as maritime claims, and therefore such liabilities can provide grounds for arrest, provided the claim falls within the Maritime Code’s arrestable categories. Arrestable maritime claims follow the Maritime Code list, conceptually aligned with the 1999 Arrest Con - vention and covering, among other things, carriage of goods, charterparties, supply of necessaries (includ - ing bunkers), salvage, collision/damage, port dues and certain ownership/possession disputes. Time limits depend on the nature of the underlying claim (eg, cargo claims, collision claims, wage claims) and the relevant limitation regime under Latvian law and applicable conventions. Maritime liens are gener - ally considered valid once the underlying privileged claim arises and remain enforceable against the vessel for the period provided by the Maritime Code (ie, liens are not perpetual; they expire if not enforced within the statutory time). 5.3 Liability in Personam for Owners or Demise Charterers At the arrest stage, Latvian courts do not require the claimant to prove final in personam liability on the merits. The claimant must show a prima facie maritime
333 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook