The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case on possibilities to appeal, according to cassation procedure, against appellate instance court judgments in administrative violation cases
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-10-01 “On Compliance of Section 286.14 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Several cases being initiated having regard to applications of Bertolds Martins Fliks, a alliance of political parties “Zaļo un Zamnieku savienība” and Vladimirs Čerkasovs where merged into one case. The Court assessed compliance of the contested norm (“Appellate instance court judgment shall not be subject to appeal and shall come into force on the date of drafting it.”) with Article 92 of the Satversme that establishes the right to a fair court, and Article 91 of the Satversme that ensures equality of persons before the law and the courts.
The Constitutional Court has indicated among the rest that neither the Satversme nor international legal acts binding on Latvia establish the duty of the State to ensure examination of any kind of cases in several court instances. One of the aims of the cassation instance is to facilitate uniform interpretation and application of legal norms in the entire State. Appealing against a decision before an appellate instance court can only be justified in cases that would improve the law or contribute into uniform interpretation of the law.
The majority of cases on administrative violations are not complicated or they do not require immediate settlement of legal relations. The Court recognized that the rights of a person in a case on administrative violations are already protected enough when the case is examined on its merits at the first two court instances.
When assessing compliance of Article 91 of the Satversme, however, the Court has indicated that the rights of participants of cases in different kinds of court proceedings are not comparable; therefore there is no reason to equate these rights. The legislator has been conferred extensive right to determine the limits of procedural rights of participants of different cases.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court recognized the contested norm as compliant with Article 91 and 92 of the Satversme.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. It shall come into force on the date of publishing in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2010-01-01