Despite the efforts of the opposing counsel in London and Riga, the English High Court’s freezing order against our client in the oil transit matters remains unenforced in Latvia. Instead, a reference for a preliminary ruling to Luxembourg.

It is a matter related to a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case No C-350/13 and the known Antonio Gramsci et al litigation in London.

The Supreme Court have decided to ask the court in Luxembourg the same questions that were asked in Case No C-350/13 where the Court of Justice of the European Union refused to give their answer because it was a hypothetical question. In the case at hand the English freezing order has not been discharged and the issue is not hypothetical. Our argument remains the same, i.e. the freezing order concerns such persons (and their assets) that are not involved in the proceedings before the English court and their enforcement in Latvia is manifestly contrary to public policy in Latvia.

It is hoped that the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union will render unenforceable in the European Union such freezing orders that affect such persons (and their assets) that are not involved in the proceedings before the English court. At least in such civil law jurisdictions as Latvia.

The opposing counsel in London were former SJ Berwin and in Riga – Sorainen.