COBALT’s Arbitration team has authored a chapter on Latvia in the Delos Guide to Arbitration Places (GAP).  The GAP is designed to assist in-house counsel, corporate lawyers and arbitration practitioners with efficiently accessing key insights into a large range of jurisdictions – now also Latvia.

The GAP provides a comprehensive, comparative study on arbitration places around the globe and is a vital resource for in-house counsel and arbitration practitioners seeking time- and cost-effective solutions in international dispute resolution. Each chapter in the GAP is structured for maximum utility: beginning with dual summaries for in-house counsel and practitioners, followed by a deep-dive analysis, and a jurisdiction-specific Traffic Lights assessment.

Resources and downloads

In-house and corporate counsel summary

Latvia is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Following the recent 2024 amendments to the Latvian arbitration law (“Arbitration Law”), Latvia’s arbitration framework is in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law. The absolute majority of arbitrations in Latvia are institutional. Latvia is a State party to the most common international arbitration instruments (the New York Convention, the ICSID Convention, European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration).

Key places of arbitration in the jurisdiction? Riga.
Civil law / Common law environment? (if mixed or other, specify) Civil law jurisdiction.
Confidentiality of arbitrations? By default, arbitrations are confidential, hearings are closed, and arbitrators have a statutory duty of non-disclosure.  Limited exceptions exist (e.g., disclosures to law enforcement where necessary to perform statutory duties).
Requirement to retain (local) counsel? There is no requirement to retain local counsel in arbitrations seated in Latvia. Foreign nationals may act as counsel.
Ability to present party employee witness testimony? There are no restrictions on who may testify, thus, for example, employee witness testimony is allowed. There may, however, be restrictions in specific circumstances (e.g., testimony of doctors, attorneys, etc.)
Ability to hold meetings and/or hearings outside of the seat and/or remotely? Hearings or meetings may be held outside the seat. The law does not expressly regulate remote hearings, but in practice arbitral tribunals have held hearings remotely.
Availability of interest as a remedy? The awarding of interest is governed by substantive rather than procedural law. Under Latvian substantive law, punitive or exemplary damages are not allowed, but arbitral tribunals may award delay interest (statutory / contractual) and / or contractual penalties.
Ability to claim for reasonable costs incurred for the arbitration? Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, arbitral tribunals seated in Latvia have broad discretion to allocate arbitration costs. Awards must include reasoning on arbitration costs and their distribution.
Restrictions regarding contingency fee arrangements and/or third-party funding? There are no laws or regulations in Latvia governing contingency or alternative fee arrangements or third-party funding.
Party to the New York Convention? Yes.
Party to the ICSID Convention? Yes.
Compatibility with the Delos Rules? Yes.
Default time-limitation period for civil actions (including contractual)? The general statute of limitation is 10 years. For commercial transactions – 3 years. The limitation period begins from the moment when a claim against the debtor is established.
Other key points to note? ϕ
World Bank, Enforcing Contracts: Doing Business score for 2020, if available? 73.5
World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index: Civil Justice score for 2025, if available? 0.71

Arbitration practitioner summary

Courts assist arbitrations with various generally recognized tasks (incl. securing of claims). Following the recent 2024 amendments to the Arbitration Law, Latvia’s arbitration framework is in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law. Although litigation in ordinary jurisdiction courts is still the more prevalent mechanism for dispute resolution in Latvia, arbitration is more and more seen as an effective method of dispute resolution.

Date of arbitration law? The Latvian Arbitration Law, entered into force on 1 January 2015 (as amended). Certain arbitration-related matters (court assistance, set-aside, recognition and enforcement) are regulated by the Civil Procedure Law, entered into force on 1 March 1999 (as amended).
UNCITRAL Model Law? If so, any key changes thereto? 2006 version? Formally not; however, following the 2024 amendments to the Arbitration Law, the regime largely reflects Model Law substance.
Availability of specialised courts or judges at the key seat(s) in the jurisdiction for handling arbitration-related matters? There are no specialized courts or judges in arbitration-related matters. District (city) courts handle court assistance, set‑aside and enforcement proceedings.
Availability of ex parte pre-arbitration interim measures? Latvian courts may grant ex parte interim measures both before and during arbitration.
Courts’ attitude towards the competence-competence principle? The Arbitration Law codifies the principle of competence-competence by providing that an arbitral tribunal has competence to decide on its own jurisdiction and any objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.  Until 2014, the principle was interpreted rather strictly by courts, providing an arbitral tribunal with an exclusive right to rule on its jurisdiction, without the possibility to challenge an arbitral tribunal’s decision before ordinary jurisdiction courts. Such approach was ruled unconstitutional and arbitrating parties are now free to challenge the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals before national courts.
May an arbitral tribunal render a ruling on jurisdiction (or other issues) with reasons to follow in a subsequent award? Generally, there are no provisions prohibiting such ruling. At the same time, Article 54(4) of the Arbitration Law provides for a list of issues that an arbitral award must contain, incl. reasoning, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Therefore, if ruling on jurisdiction is in the form of an award, it must provide reasoning (unless otherwise agreed by the parties).
Grounds for annulment of awards additional to those based on the criteria for the recognition and enforcement of awards under the New York Convention? The grounds for the annulment of arbitral awards in Latvia mirror those of the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. There are no additional or broader domestic grounds.
Do annulment proceedings typically suspend enforcement proceedings? The initiation of annulment (set-aside) proceedings as such does not automatically stay enforcement proceedings.
Courts’ attitude towards the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards annulled at the seat of the arbitration? Latvian courts are expected to apply Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention and therefore refuse enforcement of an award that has been annulled at the seat, unless exceptional circumstances justify recognition. However, to date, no court practice exists regarding the enforcement of foreign awards annulled at the place of arbitration.
If an arbitral tribunal were to order a hearing to be conducted remotely (in whole or in part) despite a party’s objection, would such an order affect the recognition or enforceability of an ensuing award in the jurisdiction? Remote hearings are not expressly regulated by the Arbitration Law; there is no Latvian case law indicating that a remote‑hearing order per se would impair recognition/enforcement. In any event, the arbitral tribunal must ensure that arbitrating parties have equal procedural rights, i.e. equal opportunity to present their case and exercise their lawful rights. If this principle is not respected, this could affect the recognition or enforceability of an ensuing award.
Key points to note in relation to arbitration with and enforcement of awards against public bodies at the jurisdiction? Disputes where a state/municipal body is a party, or where an award may affect such a body’s rights, are non‑arbitrable in Latvia (Article 5 of the Latvian Arbitration Law).
Is the validity of blockchain-based evidence recognised? Latvian law does not specifically regulate the validity of blockchain-based evidence. Under the Latvian Arbitration Law, arbitral tribunals have full discretion to determine the admissibility, relevance, and weight of any evidence. There are no restrictions on presenting electronic or digital evidence, including blockchain records.
Where an arbitration agreement and/or award is recorded on a blockchain, is it recognised as valid? Latvian law does not specifically address blockchain records, but the Arbitration Law recognises arbitration agreements concluded in writing, including those made by electronic means, as long as the content is accessible and reproducible. A blockchain record seemingly satisfies these criteria if it clearly identifies the parties’ consent and the agreement’s terms. Arbitral awards issued in Latvia must be made in writing (Article 54(2) of the Arbitration Law). It is arguable to what extent a Latvian court would be satisfied that these requirements are met where an arbitration agreement and/or award is recorded on a blockchain. However, to date, there has been no court practice on this.
Would a court consider a blockchain arbitration agreement and/or award as originals for the purposes of recognition and enforcement? A blockchain-recorded arbitration agreements / awards would be treated as valid if they meet the written form requirement under  the Arbitration Law. If blockchain arbitration agreements and awards were recognized as valid, it is assumed that they would also be considered originals for recognition and enforcement purposes. However, to date, there has been no court practice on this.
Other key points to note? ϕ