A judgment has been adopted in the case on the rights to appeal against a decision regarding securing of a claim in a civil procedure
The Constitutional Court has adopted a decision in the case No. 2009-85-01 “On Compliance of the First Part of Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as It Provides for the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding Securing of a Claim with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The applicants, Joint Stock Company “Topmar Holdings” and Vitālijs Grinčišins indicated that the contested norm prohibits a defendants in a civil case submitting an ancillary complaint regarding a decision satisfying an application on securing of a claim. Such decision is adopted without the presence of the parties, and the defendants do not have the possibility to express their point of view. However, if a court rejects an application on securing of a claim, the applicant has the right to submit an ancillary complaint in regard to such decision.
According to the applicants, the situation when a court, without having heard the parties and based only on the arguments of the applicant, adopts a decision that is not subject to appeal does not comply with the right to a fair court established in Article 92 of the Satversme and infringes the principle of equality enshrined in Article 91 of the Satversme; likewise, it breaches the right to own property as guaranteed in Article 105 of the Satversme.
The applicant shall have the right to ask securing a claim if there are reasonable grounds to suggest that execution of a judgment would later be hampered or impossible (for instance, a defendant might hide or dispossess property). All measures of securing of a claim considerably restrict the right of the defendant to act with the property owned by him or her, or prohibit the defendant to perform certain activities.
The Constitutional Court has concluded that the contested norm creates unequal conditions for the parties and the rights of a defendant are restricted in a non-proportional manner. Consequently, the Constitutional Court recognized that the Contested Norm does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Constitutional Court established that, up to the moment when the Saeima (Parliament) introduces amendments to the normative regulatory framework, the First Part of Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Law shall remain valid in the previous wording of 14 December 2006. This norm provides for the right of the defendant to submit an ancillary complaint regarding a decision, in which a court has rejected cancelling securing of a claim.
The Judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. The Judgment shall come into force on the date of publishing it in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2009-85-01