Proceedings in the case on confiscation of property as criminal punishment have been terminated
The Constitutional Court has adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in the case No. 2010-31-01 “On Compliance of the Words “with Confiscation of Property” of Section 320 (2) of the Criminal Law (Wording of 25 April 2002) with Article 105 of the Satversme”.
Article 105 of the Satversme provides: “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.”
The contested norm of the Criminal Law establishes confiscation of property as mandatory criminal punishment. The applicant Dainis Markus suggested that confiscation of property as a mandatory additional punishment does not comply with the above mentioned norm of the Satversme, particularly, with the fourth sentence thereof.
It was indicated in the application that confiscation applies not only to the applicant personally but also to his family members. The Constitutional Court concluded that the latter persons have not lodged any constitutional complaints before the Court; therefore the Constitutional Court does not have any right to assess the contested norm regarding its provisions on possible infringement of the fundamental rights of the relatives of the applicant.
The Constitutional Court indicated that the regulatory framework on confiscation does have substantial deficiencies. For instance, the legislator has failed to establish in the Law what kind of property would be confiscated. Consequently, when confiscating property, the fundamental rights of other family members of a convict could also be infringed.
The Constitutional Court also concluded that the regulatory framework on property confiscation does pertain to the scope of the second and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme, therefore the particular regulatory framework should be regarded as an infringement of the fundamental rights, namely, it is necessary for the Court to assess whether the restriction has been established by law, whether it has a legitimate objective, and whether it is proportional.
The Court established that the contested restriction does have a legitimate objective, namely, protection of the democratic regime of the State, security of the society and rights of other persons.
However, in order to be able to establish whether application of property confiscation punishment restricts the fundamental rights of a person in a proportional way, the Court has to assess several aspects of the regulatory framework on confiscation punishment. To do this, the Court would have to broaden the claim expressed in the present case and to assess norms of the general part of the Criminal Law and interpretation thereof rather than the contested norm.
Neither legal justification presented by the applicant in relation to norms of the general part of the Criminal Law, nor that of the Saeima is exhaustive enough for the Court to be able to assess these norms in the frameworks of the case under review. Consequently, the Constitutional Court concluded that in the present case it is not possible to broaden the claim and continue legal proceedings.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2010-31-01