NATIONAL LAW IMPLEMENTING THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE

A. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LAW

B. TRANSPOSITION ISSUES

Latvia did not entirely transpose the Enforcement Directive by the transposition deadline of 29 April 2006. The fi nal set of amendments necessary to bring Latvian laws in line with the Enforcement Directive entered into force on 1 March 2007.

Prior to 1 March 2007, Latvian law satisfied most of the Directive's requirements; however, some provisions were not implemented to the full extent and, therefore, additional amendments to national laws were necessary. For example, in respect of procedural rights, the Civil Procedure Law had to be supplemented with rights to secure non-material claims in intellectual property matters, with rights to secure evidence in intellectual property matters, to grant interim injunctions and to provide for the compensation of damages in case an interim injunction is revoked.

Latvia has implemented all of the Enforcement Directive's mandatory provisions, but has not introduced any non-mandatory provisions with regard to alternative measures.

C. ASSESSMENT REPORTS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Directive obliges Member States to submit, three years aft er the expiry of the deadline for the transposition, a report to the Commission on the implementation of the Enforcement Directive. The report by Latvia is not currently available. Latvia is among the Member States addressed in the “Support Study for the Ex-Post Evaluation and Ex-Ante Impact Analysis of the IPR Enforcement Directive” published by the European Commission in 2017.