Consistency in the legislator's approach: the context of the Latvian civil procedure law

This article analyses the consistency of the legislator in regulating procedural requirements and adherence to the principles of good legislation. Its objective is to examine the current provisions of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law (Civilprocesa likums: Latvijas Republikas likums, 1998, hereafter – CPL) from the perspective of good legislative practice, assess the approach taken by the legislator in amending the existing regulations and consider other factors relevant to the quality of the law. The author employs analytical, logical, inductive and deductive research methods in the study. The relevance of this topic is underscored by the legislator's ongoing efforts to amend the Civil Procedure Law, as well as rulings of the Latvian Constitutional Court, which have repeatedly identified shortcomings in the legislation. Additionally, deficiencies in legal regulation, identified in both judicial practice and legal scholarship, further highlight the importance of this research. The study concludes that, when amending the CPL, the legislator does not always adhere to a consistent approach or properly assess the quality of the amendments. For instance, without a clear and comprehensible justification, identical procedural institutions are sometimes subject to different regulations. This applies, for example, to the making of a supplementary decision, the submission of knowingly unfounded applications, as well as other aspects.