A Case Initiated having regard to a Norm in Protection Zone Law
On 21 May 2014 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2) of the Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Pursuant to Para 1 of Section 36(2) of Protection Zone Law in the coastal dune protection zone and beach it is prohibited to build new and to enlarge buildings and structures, except for the cases, when the existing buildings are being renovated or restored.
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 91 of the Satversme: “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.“
Article 105 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to own property. Property shall not be used contrary to the interests of the public. Property rights may be restricted only in accordance with law. Expropriation of property for public purposes shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a specific law and in return for fair compensation.“
The Facts
The case was initiated having regard to the application submitted by the Administrative District Court. The Administrative District Court was reviewing a case, in which a person’s request to restore the property, which had been destroyed by fire, in the coastal dune protection zone of the Gulf of Riga was rejected. The contested norm was used to substantiate the rejection, as it allegedly allows only restoration, renovation or reconstruction of existing buildings and prohibits construction of new buildings.
It is noted in the application that the contested norm equates restoration of destroyed buildings with construction. Thus, the contested norm places the owner of the destroyed building in a more adverse situation compared to those owners of buildings, whose buildings or structures are not completely destroyed. This attitude allegedly is incompatible with the principle of equality and disproportionally infringes upon a person’s right to own property.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 21 July of the current year.
The term for preparing the case is 21 October 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2014-16-01