Good Faith in Civil Procedure: The Latvian Experience

Abstract

Civil procedure has traditionally been viewed as a means of resolving disputes between two parties, with the court providing a formal framework for the proceedings, focusing primarily on delivering a judgment and leaving the conduct of procedural activities largely at the parties’ discretion. This article provides insights into the regulation in Latvia, which establishes the obligation of good faith and truthfulness in civil proceedings, and examines Latvia’s experience in identifying procedural abuses in case law at all three judicial levels. As constitutional values have gained importance and the concept of the right to a fair trial has evolved, our understanding of civil procedure is gradually changing; it must serve not only the protection of the parties’ subjective interests but also the common good of society, with the court playing a more active role in ensuring a fair trial. These developments call for a shift in the approach to how parties’ rights are exercised and enforced, as well as for strengthening the court’s role—an evolution highlighted by procedural law reforms in European countries. Considering over 200 publicly available rulings of Latvian courts, the article categorises the most common instances of procedural abuse and violations of the obligation to tell the truth. The final section addresses the court’s role in promoting and ensuring compliance with the duty of good faith.