Summarizing these issues (GIC) in identifying and analyzing the most common stumbling blocks in court decisions, the need to introduce common practices in order not to create or at least reduce new precedents of a similar nature. To present what nuances are and which are not taken into account in order to determine the main center of interests in the field of natural person insolvency by conducting research of legal regulation and analysis of court rulings, so that these procedural solutions can be used to improve and facilitate Latvian courts. The research, using the comparative, analytical, descriptive, deduction and induction method, has analyzed Latvian and foreign regulatory enactments. Analyzing the Council Regulation, it is clear that the court does not have an unequivocal case law on this type of dishonest debtor and, worse, of course, the promoters of such cases are mostly lawyers trying to interpret the law and not follow the main purpose of the Insolvency Law and Council Regulation. The correct understanding and definition of the concept of the center of main interests is essential in order to decide in a fair trial which of the natural persons who have filed an insolvency application with the court, the insolvency proceedings are to be declared in Latvia.It can be concluded that the current and largely decisive opinion in Latvian court practice and legal literature on determining the center of main interests, within the meaning of the New Regulation, is not efficient and ineffective, which does not really provide a methodologically uniform approach to determining the center of main interests, thus creating new precedents.
- 3.4. Other publications in conference proceedings (including local)