Search

Filter results

  • Stages of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 1
  • More
Results: 1
Print
Case No 2016-20-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jana Ruģele
03.10.2016.
03.03.2017.
-
25.04.2017.

08.05.2017.

On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency Administrator

The Court’s Findings and Decisions:

On 6 January 2017 the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” entered into force, by which, inter alia, Section 17 was deleted from the Insolvency Law.

Pursuant to Para 2 of Section 29 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, legal proceedings in a case may be terminated before a judgement is pronounced by a decision of the Constitutional Court, if the contested legal form has become invalid. In assessing, whether there were grounds for terminating legal proceedings in the case, the Constitutional Court examined: 1) whether the contested norm had become invalid; and 2) whether no circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were present.

The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the Insolvency Law that were currently in force did not comprise such grounds for terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate as the one that was included in the contested norm. Legal regulation on terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate and removing an administrator from office has changed substantially. Thus, the contested norm has become invalid.

In examining, whether no circumstances existed requiring continuation of legal proceedings, the Constitutional Court assessed, whether the fact that the contested norm had become invalid was sufficient grounds for considering that the violation of a person’s fundamental rights caused by the contested norm had been eliminated.

The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm did not violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the administrative cases regarding terminating the operation of administrator’s certificates that had been issued to them had been terminated. I.e., the applicants still have valid administrators’ certificates. Thus, there are no circumstances in the case that would require continuation of legal proceedings and the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings.