One more case initiated with respect to norms that provide for the rights of a court to refuse initiating appellate legal proceedings in a form of resolution in an administrative violation case
On 18 September 2017, the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Section 28920 (5) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code: “If the judge, to whom the appeals complaint has been transferred for review, recognises that initiation of appellate procedure shall be refused, because there are no grounds for initiation thereof, the issue regarding initiation of appellate legal proceedings shall be decided on by three judges in a collegial manner within 10 days”.
Section 28920 (7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code: “If judges unanimously recognise that none of the grounds for initiating appellate procedure referred to in Section 28917 (3) of this Code exists, the judges shall adopt a decision on refusal to initiate appellate procedure. The decisions shall be drawn up in the form of a resolution, indicating the judges, who adopted the decision. The decision shall not be subject to appeal. The applicant shall be informed about the decision that has been adopted.”
Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
Facts of the Case
The case was initiated with regard to Alvis Hāze’s application. The applicant had been made administratively liable and had been imposed a fine. The administrative violation case had been reviewed at the institution and the court. The applicant has submitted an appellate complaint regarding the judgement by the first instance court. On the basis of the contested norms, three judges of the appellate instance court have adopted a decision to refuse initiating appellate proceedings, and the decision has been drawn up in a form of resolution.
The applicant holds that the contested norms place disproportionate restrictions upon his right to a fair trial enshrined in the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme, since the applicant’s right to effective accessibility of court and impartiality of the court, as well as the right to receive reasoned ruling by the court had been violated.
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 21 November 2017.
The term for preparing the case is 18 February 2018. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Open in PDF: 2017-22-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-22-01