Search

On compliance of the second sentence of Section 4441(3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording which was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held :

1. To recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) and the second sentence of Section 431 (2), insofar these norms do not provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. With respect to “WINNER”, Ltd., undergoing liquidation, to recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021), insofar it does provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on its fundamental rights occurred.