Search

On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court has ruled:

1. to recognise Section 213 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

2. to recognise the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether the initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 30 November 2018;

3. with regard to the applicant Alvis Hāze, to recognise the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publication of this judgment;

4. to recognise the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage an obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

5. with regard to the applicants Aleksejs Stepanovs, Alvis Hāze, Raimonds Bētiņš, Mārtiņš Kalniņs and the limited liability company “Alcamo”, as well as the individuals who, for protection of their fundamental rights, applied to the Constitutional Court before the day of coming into force of this judgment, to recognise the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage the obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment the infringement of a corresponding applicant’s fundamental rights occurred.