1. Court practice, precedent and judicature
Latvian perspective

2. General framework of terminology
Court practice: broadest meaning – total oucome of rules & principles made by the court system
Judicature: the autoritative, «correct» part of court practice; outcome of interpretation of legal norms
Precedent: compulsory rule established by previous ruling («stare decisis» of common law)
Judge Law: principles or rules made by judges due to the lack of legal norms (recent development, German influence, no practical distinction from judicature)
General framework of terminology

3. Judicature vs. precedent
primary source of the law (specific feature of the common law)
therefore can be used alone, without reference to the legal norm
binding to lower courts
Not recognized in Latvia
Judicature
secondary (auxiliary) source of the law, with mainly explanatory function
therefore generally cannot be used alone without reference to the legal norm
Persuasive by inner authority rather than formally binding
Art.5(6) of Civil Proceedings Law: Court considers judicature when applying laws.
Judicature vs. precedent

4. Judicature about judicature
Supreme Court judgements SKC-2778/2015, SPC-11/2016
Even though under Art. 5(6) of Civil Procedure Law the court must consider judicature, the court is not bound by it absolutely. Court must know the judicature and must consider its usage. If the court departs from the judicature, it must specifically provide motives for such a departure.
Judicature about judicature

5. Recent Examples of Judicature
When establishing rent, the court may establish only the essential components of the rent contract (SKC–0189/2015)
Commencement of insolvency in another Member State cannot influence the right of the creditor to satisfy its claim, if the creditor has not been notified of this insolvency (SKC–0189/2015)
Failure to submit creditor’s claim to insolvency administrator rezults in expiration of that claim even though the claim was submitted to the court (SKC-0003/2016)
Obligations from a bill of exchange does not exist without the original bill of exchange or a duplicate thereof (SKC-17/2016)
Non-pecuniary damage in case of copyright breach is not presumable, but is provable (SKC-[B]/2016)
Recent Examples of Judicature