A case initiated regarding the possibility to appeal against a decision by the court to terminate insolvency proceedings
On 6 January 2016 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On compliance of Section 36320 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
The contested norm of the Civil Procedure Law was in force until 31 December 2010 and it provided, inter alia, that the decision by the court on terminating the insolvency proceedings of a natural person without releasing the natural person from the remaining liabilities was not subject to appeal.
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
The Facts
The case has been initiated on the basis of a constitutional complaint submitted by Aivars Trops, it is noted in the complaint that he has completed bankruptcy procedure and that the insolvency proceedings of a natural person had been terminated without releasing him from the remaining liabilities. Moreover, the size of the remaining liabilities is said to be considerable. The insolvency proceedings were initiated in 2009, when the contested norm had been in force. This means that pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law and the Insolvency Law the applicant has no possibility to appeal against the ruling by the court by which the insolvency proceedings were terminated without releasing the submitter of the complaint from the remaining liabilities.
The applicant notes that the right to a fair trial comprises also the right to appeal against a court’s ruling. The contested norm is said to place disproportional restrictions upon this right.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has invited the Saeima to submit to the Constitutional Court a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal substantiation by 7 March 2016.
The term for preparing the case is 6 June 2016. The Court shall decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2016-01-01