A case initiated with respect to a norm that grants the right to an insurer, in case if an agreed statement is not submitted, to bring a subrogation claim against the driver of a vehicle, who has caused loss to a third person in a road traffic accident
On 4 September 2017 the 3rd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41 (1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (hereinafter – the CCLI Law) provides that an insurer is entitled to submit a subrogation action against the driver of a motor vehicle that has caused the loss to a third person in a road traffic accident, if he or she has failed to submit a completed agreed statement in accordance with the procedures laid down in this Law or has failed to submit information regarding the circumstances of the road traffic accident to the insurer upon request thereof.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
Article 105 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to own property. Property shall not be used contrary to the interests of the public. Property rights may be restricted only in accordance with law. Expropriation of property for public purposes shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a specific law and in return for fair compensation.”
Facts of the Case
The case has been initiated with regard to an application submitted by Svetlana Blohina. The applicant had caused a road traffic accident, as the result of which she caused losses to a third person. The losses caused by the road traffic accident had been compensated to the third person by the insurer. Although the persons, who were involved in the road traffic accident, had filled out the agreed statement, the applicant did not submit it to the insurer in the procedure established in the CCLI Law. Therefore the insurer, on the basis of the contested norm, had brought a subrogation action against the applicant. The court had satisfied the claim and had recovered from the applicant compensation for losses.
The Applicant holds that the contested norm restricts her right to property enshrined in Article 105 of the Satversme, because the obligation to compensate to the insurer all losses, which it had incurred in connection with disbursement of insurance compensation, decreases the amount of property (monetary resources) owned by the applicant. The obligation of the second participant of a road traffic accident to cover all losses is said to be incommensurate in a case, where the insurance already has at its disposal one copy of the agreed statement, on the basis of which it is possible to establish the circumstances of the incident and decide on disbursement of insurance compensation. Whereas if the insurer does not have at its disposal complete information about the circumstances of the occurrence, it should obtain this information before disbursing insurance compensation, rather than disburse the insurance compensation and then bring subrogation action against the driver of the motor vehicle, who had caused the losses.
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 6 November 2017.
The term for preparing the case is 4 February 2018. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
 Para 10 of Section 1 of the CCLI Law provides that an agreed statement is a form that the drivers of motor vehicles who are involved in a road traffic accident must complete at the scene of the accident, confirming by signature the circumstances of the accident, the facts and the scheme of the accident.
 It follows from Para 2 of Section 36(2) of the CCLI Law that the driver of a motor vehicle, who has caused a road traffic accident, has to submit within 10 days after the day of the occurrrence of the road traffic accident to his or her CCLI insurer the second copy of the filled out agreed statement.
Open in PDF: 2017-21-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-21-01