Flick hopes for favorable judgment

  • 2013-10-03
  • From wire report

RIGA - The fact that the Latvian State Chancellery’s report on potential scenarios for solving disagreements between airBaltic’s former CEO Bertolt Flick and the state has become available to the public means that it is now detrimental to the state and its chances of defending its financial interests, Transport Minister Anrijs Matiss said in an interview on Sept. 24 on Latvian State Television, reports LETA.

Matiss believes that the report is “not confidential enough,” and can be used in potential legal proceedings against the state. Due to this, the minister declined to comment on the report.
Nevertheless, the minister pointed out that the report is “odd,” since the State Chancellery’s lawyers have participated in all processes connected with airBaltic, and leads to the question - where were they with their warnings before?
The State Chancellery has concluded that the state may have to pay compensation of 15-16 million lats (around 22 million euros) to airBaltic former CEO Flick, if his claim is found to be justified by the International Court of Arbitration, as the LTV broadcast Panorama reported on Sept. 23.

Panorama has gained access to the State Chancellery’s report on potential scenarios if the judgement is favorable for Flick.
Flick’s claim was submitted to the prime minister in June, based on an investment protection agreement between Latvia and Germany. After submitting his claim, Flick must wait six months to turn to the International Court of Arbitration. Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis has tasked the Transport Ministry with solving the matter. The Transport Ministry has requested the State Chancellery’s opinion.

The State Chancellery emphasizes that its opinion cannot be considered to be the government’s opinion, but the report has been drafted to warn about potential consequences. The State Chancellery’s lawyer, Ivars Mekons, says in the report that, taking into account past practices in investment protection, there is reason for concern that Flick’s claim may be deemed justified by the International Court of Arbitration.