A case initiated regarding an administrative court’s right to vary decisions of the Competition Council
On 17 March 2017, the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia”.
Contested Norm
Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that a court, in cases provided for by law, may vary an administrative act and determine its specific substance.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
First sentence of Article 92 if the Constitution: “Everyone has the right to defend their rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
The Facts
The case has been initiated on the basis of two identically worded applications filed by the Administrative District Court. As indicated in the applications, the court is currently examining administrative cases in which the applicants, inter alia, ask that the Competition Council’s decisions be varied to reduce the fines imposed on them.
According to the interpretation of the contested norm, a court may vary a decision and determine its specific substance only if such competence is provided for by regulations. However, neither the Competition Law nor other legal norms regulating competition directly provide for an administrative court’s right to vary decisions of the Competition Council.
The Applicant holds that the contested norm, which unnecessarily restricts an administrative court’s competence to vary decisions of the Competition Council, is incompatible with the person’s right to a fair trial.
Legal proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit by 17 May 2017 to the Constitutional Court a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
The term for preparing the case is 17 August 2017. The Court shall decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Open in PDF: 2017-08-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-08-01