A Case Initiated Regarding a Norm in the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council on not Repaying a Fee
On 11 May 2015 the 3rd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On the Compliance of the First Sentence in Para 24 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 19 February 2013 No. 211 “On the Municipal Fee for the Maintenance and Development of the Municipality Infrastructure in Riga” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Contested Norm
The contested norm provides:
“If the building permit is revoked (annulled, etc.), the part of the fee that has been paid [for the maintenance and development of municipal infrastructure within the administrative territory of Riga] shall not be repaid, but, on the basis of an application by the initiator of the construction project, shall be counted as the part of the paid fee, when receiving another building permit for a new construction process in the same real estate object.”
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
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 has been initiated on the basis of an application submitted by the Administrative District Court. While examining a case the Administrative District Court found that the prohibition to repay the paid fee for the maintenance and development of municipal infrastructure within the administrative territory of Riga (hereinafter – the fee) established by the contested norm was incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme; i.e., the right to own property. In the case under review, a merchant, upon receiving a building permit, paid a fee in the amount of several thousand lats. Without starting construction works, the merchant requested the Riga City Council to revoke the issued building permit. However, on the basis of the contested norm, the merchant was refused repayment of the fee that had been paid.
The Administrative District Court is of the opinion that the contested norm restricts the right to own property of those persons, who have paid part of the fee and have not started construction works. The contested norm allows the possibility that the part of the fee that has been paid would be counted as the paid fee, if a person (a merchant) receives another building permit for a new construction process in the same real estate object. However, this allegedly forces the payer of the fee to implement any kind of building project, even if has no interest to build. Moreover, the contested norm does not allow attributing the paid fee to construction in another real estate object owned by the person within the administrative territory of Riga. Moreover, the payer of the fee in no way benefits from the fee being retained in the municipal budget. Thus, the contested norm places disproportional restriction upon a person’s right to own property.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Riga City Council to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 13 July of this year.
The term for preparing the case is 11 October 2015. The Court shall decide upon the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2015-13-03