A Case Initiated regarding the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work
On 14 May 2014 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of Section 635(6) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Section 635 (6) of the Civil Procedure Law: “Reversal of execution of a Judgement shall be allowed in matters regarding [….] recovery of remuneration for work […] if the judgement set aside was based on false information furnished by or forged documents submitted by the plaintiff.”
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of 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 Civil Procedure Law, inter alia, envisages regulation for situations, when a judgement in a case has been enforced, however, following new examination of the case the result has changed, for example, a previously satisfied claim is set aside. In such a case the person, in the favour of whom the judgement has been enforced, must return everything he or she has received or, if that is impossible, must compensate for the value of the property.
The contested norm envisages exceptions with regard to this regulation (reversal of execution of a judgement) in cases, where the dispute concerns the recovery of remuneration for work. In such cases the reversal of execution of a judgement is possible, if the judgement set aside had been based on false information furnished by or forged documents submitted by the plaintiff.
A constitutional complaint regarding the contested norm was submitted by Ltd. “RMB One”. It had had a dispute with an employee regarding recognising the termination of the labour contract as invalid and remuneration for forced absence from work. In the first instance the employee’s claim was satisfied and it was provided that the judgement had to be enforced immediately. Thus, Ltd. “RMB One” was obliged to pay, inter alia, the sum recovered in favour for the employee.
The appellate instance court set aside the judgement by the first instance court. However, the court, on the basis of the contested norm, rejected the request concerning reversal of execution of the judgement.
The submitter of the constitutional complaint notes that the contested norm has a legitimate aim, i.e., to protect the employees’ interests, however, the restriction to the employers’ rights, included in the norm, is disproportional. In a case like this the employer is totally denied the possibility to recover the remuneration for work paid to the employee without grounds. Thus, the contested norm fails to ensure the procedural equality of parties.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima and to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 14 July of the current year.
The term for preparing the case is 14 October 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2014-13-01