Proceedings in the case on remuneration of a representative in an administrative procedure has been terminated
The Constitutional Court has adopted a decision to terminate proceedings in the case No. 2010-11-01 “On Compliance of the Fourth Part of Section 18 of the Administrative Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 92 of the Satversme provides among the rest things that everyone, where his or her rights are violated without basis, has a right to commensurate compensation and everyone has a right to the assistance of counsel.
The contested norm provides: : “In administrative matters, which are complicated for the addressee, pursuant to a decision of an institution or court, and taking into account the financial circumstances of the natural person, remuneration to a representative of the natural person shall be paid from the State budget.”
The applicant, i.e. the Administrative Regional Court holds that the contested norm does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme because it provides for remuneration for the representative only in the cases that were recognized, by an institution or court, as complicated, and the remuneration is related with the financial circumstances of the person to be represented. The Administrative Regional Court observes that in an administrative procedure a person does not have the right to receive compensation of expenses for legal assistance as established in the Law on Compensation of Losses Incurred by the State Administration Institutions (Compensation Law). Namely, in an administrative procedure it is possible to receive compensation for expenses spent on legal assistance only in accordance with the contested norm. The applicant concludes that a low-income person who wants to be represented before the court by himself or herself or who has agreed to have the case examined in writing does not have the possibility to receive compensation for expenses on legal assistance even if an administrative act issued by or an actual activities of an institution are recognized as unlawful by the court.
The Constitutional Court indicates that such assumption of the applicant is not grounded. The contested norm and the norms of the Compensation Law (third part of Section 7) do not apply to one and the same circle of persons subject to the law and regulates different legal situations. Namely, based on the financial circumstances of a natural person, the contested norm provides for compensation of expenses on legal assistance in complicated cases only to a natural persons; moreover, which is implemented already during the procedure and irrespective the outcome of the case. However, the third part of Section 7 of the Compensation Law applies to any natural person and basically provides for compensation of expenses for legal assistance after unlawfulness of an administrative act issued by or activity of an institution is established during proceedings. Consequently, application of the contested norm does not exclude application of the third part of Section 7 of the Compensation Law. Both these legal norms are effective and allow a person to choose the way of exercising his or her rights. The Constitutional Court has also indicated that taking into account, among the rest, the principle of objective investigation, administrative courts enjoy a broad freedom of action when applying the third part of Section 7 of the Compensation Law.
Consequently, the Court concluded that there is no reason to continue proceedings in the case.
The judgment of the Constitutional court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2010-11-01