Dispute resolution

Ellex Klavins has earned the trust of top local and international companies during the more than 20 years of the firm’s practice in the field of dispute resolution. Our experts are business-minded and support the pragmatic commercial considerations that are always prominent in clients’ dispute matters. We help our clients to gain a full understanding of the complexities of our local court system and aim to provide them with a big-picture framework of the case without forgetting small but important nuts and bolts. Our firm also has significant experience in arbitrations handled outside of the country.
Key projects in the field

Key contacts

Daiga Zivtiņa


Head of Dispute Resolution Practice
+371 6781 4848

Ilga Gudrenika-Krebs


+371 6781 4848

Irina Kostina

Associate Partner

Dispute Resolution and Employment
Head of Employment Law Practice
+371 67814862

Jevgēnijs Salims

Senior Counsel

Dispute Resolution
What's new in field
Chambers Global ranks Ellex as the leading law firm within Corporate/Commercial and Dispute Resolution in all Baltic countries
Read more

Key projects in the field

Ellex Klavins successfully represented the Latvian state in the person of the Ministry of Finance and the State JSC "Privatisation Agency" in high-profile litigation case
Ellex Klavins successfully represented the Latvian state in proceedings with former shareholders of JSC "Parex banka" (now "Reverta") Valērijs Kargins and Viktors Krasovickis.
In 2012, the former shareholders of Parex banka brought an action against the Latvian State, in the person of the Ministry of Finance, Parex banka, the Latvian Mortgage and Land Bank and the Latvian Privatisation Agency, demanding to invalidate the Investment Agreement, pursuant to which the Latvian state took over all of the shares of Parex banka in 2008 and provided multi-million state support to the bank, thereby saving it from insolvency.
The bankers filed a claim challenging the Investment Agreement in order to avoid certain liabilities that they had incurred under the terms of the Investment Agreement. Specifically, on the basis of the Investment Agreement, a claim was made against the former bankers in 2011 for the collection of approximately LVL 100 million (about 144 million euro) because of a breach of their obligations under the Investment Agreement.
This litigation is unique in Latvia due to its scale and being the first matter of its kind. The Latvian state, in the person of the Ministry of Finance, was represented in all instances by Ellex Klavins’ senior associate Raivis Leimanis, and the Latvian Privatisation Agency was represented in the court of appeal by Ellex Klavins’ senior associate Roberts Rimša.
Ellex Klavins successfully advised US residents owning real estate in Latvia
Ellex Klavins successfully disputed the Latvian tax authority’s erroneous tax assessment and stopped enforcement proceedings against two US nationals and owners of real estate in Latvia.
The client was represented by expert Irina Kostina.
Ellex Klavins successfully represented Sicor Biotech in a case concerning the rights to a medical product
Riga Regional Court on 14 September 2015 dismissed the appeal application by Hoffmann-La Roche in its entirety. The relevant appeal concerned the first instance court’s judgment of 19 February 2015, where the first instance court dismissed the initial Hoffmann-La Roche claim against Sicor Biotech, a Teva Pharmaceutical Industries company, regarding violation of Hoffmann-La Roche exclusive rights to medical product capacitabine in Latvia arising out of its registered supplementary protection certificate (‘SPC’), and satisfied Sicor Biotech’s counter-claim seeking invalidation of the relevant SPC due to non-compliance with the EU Regulation No.469/2009.
The dispute essentially concerns interpretation of EU Regulation No.469/2009 (‘SPC Regulation’), namely, whether transitional provisions concerning the accession of the new Member States in May 2004, including Latvia, are to be interpreted in a way that SPCs granted by the relevant new Member States before accession to EU under domestic laws are subject to the requirements under the SPC Regulation so that the term of such pre-accession SPCs must be recalculated not to exceed 15 years from the moment when the first marketing authorization for the relevant drug was issued anywhere within the EEA. The first instance court and the appeal court ruled that indeed such recalculation of the SPC validity term is warranted and invalidated the SPC owned by Hoffmann-La Roche for the time period after 10 June 2013.
Martins Gailis and Irina Kostina represented Sicor Biotech in this case.