A case has been initiated regarding a person’s right to appeal against a decision on seizing property adopted in an administrative violation case, if the person is neither a person, who has been held administratively liable, nor the victim
On 3 October 2014 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Section 279(1) of and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme.”
Contested Norms
Section 279(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code provides:
“A person, who has been held administratively liable, as well as the victim may appeal against the decision adopted by the institution (official) in the administrative violation case to a higher institution. In the absence of a higher institution, the decision may be appealed against to the district (municipal) court.”
Section 288 (1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code provides:
“A person, who has been held administratively liable, as well as the victim may appeal a decision rendered by a higher authority to the district (city) court according to the declared place of residence, a legal person – according to the legal address thereof in Latvia. If the person does not have a declared place of residence or the address of the legal person is not located in Latvia, the decision may be appealed to the district (city) court according to the place where the administrative violation was committed. The public prosecutor shall submit a protest according to the place where the administrative violation was committed.”
Norm of Higher Legal Force
Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with law. Everyone, where his or her rights are violated without basis, has a right to commensurate compensation. Everyone has a right to the assistance of counsel.”
The Facts
The case been initiates having regard to the constitutional complaint submitted by Limited liability company “Tavex” (hereinafter – the Applicant).
The State Revenue Service, conducting a thematic audit of the Applicant, established violations. A report was drawn up in the administrative violation case and, in accordance with it, property owned by the Applicant was seized. In connection with the respective violation the Chairperson of the Applicant’s Board was held administratively liable.
The Applicant, in the procedure established by law, appealed against the decision by the State Revenue Service to its Director General, who recognised it as being lawful. Therefore the Applicant turned to court, however, on the basis of the contested norms, which directly provide that a decision adopted by an institution in an administrative violation case may be appealed against only by the person, who has been held administratively liable, or the victim, the court refused to initiate a case, terminated the initiated case and rejected the auxiliary complaint.
The Applicant holds that the contested norms, insofar they do not envisage the right of another person, who has not been held administratively liable and is not the victim, but whose rights or lawful interests have been violated, to appeal against a decision adopted by an institution in an administrative violation case, are incompatible with the Satversme.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the institution, which has adopted the contested act, – the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia, to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 3 December of the current year.
The term for preparing the case is 3 March 2015. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2014-33-01