A case initiated with regard of a provision in the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation, which limits the amount of insurance indemnity to be disbursed to a person, who has become a victim of a road-traffic accident and suffered moderate bodily injury
On 31 March 2014 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On the Compliance of Subparagraph 3.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 “Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person” with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle”.
The Contested Norm
The contested norm envisages that the insurance indemnity in the amount from 120 to 290 euros shall be disbursed to the victim in the case of moderate bodily injuries
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The third sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone, where his or her rights are violated without basis, has a righto commensurate compensation”.
Para 1 of Section 15(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle (hereinafter – OCTA Law) regulates the amount, in which the insurer or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau shall cover the losses, which, upon the setting in of an insurable event, caused to a person or property.
The Facts
The case has been initiated having regard to an application submitted by the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia. The applicant holds that even though in accordance with Para 1 of Section 15(1) in OCTA Law, the limits of the insurer’s liability with regard to indemnifying for losses caused to a person is envisaged up to 250 000 lats for every person, who has suffered (in the wording of the norm until 30 November 2009), the government, having been assigned this task by the legislator, has established the insurance indemnity as a single payment, limiting it to an inadequately small sum. Moreover, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No.331 ““Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person” does not envisage the possibility to contest the amount of indemnity disbursed within the limits of this sum and to define it within the limits of the insurer’s liability, established in OCTA law, on the basis of the principle of compensation enshrined in insurance law, i.e., upon the setting in of an insurance event the insurer disburses not only the sum of money or other appropriate benefit that corresponds to the value of the loss, but also adequate and just indemnity for moral damages.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Cabinet of Ministers to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 2 June 2014.
The term for preparing the case is 31 August 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Additional Information
On 14 February 2014 the Constitutional Court initiated Case No. 2014-06-03 “On Compliance of Para 7 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No.331 “Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-Material Losses Caused to Person” with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 1 of Section 15(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Motor Vehicles”, having regard to an application submitted by the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court.
On 7 March 2014 the Constitutional Court initiated Case No. 2014-07-03 “On Compliance of Para 3, Sub-para 5.5 and Para 10 of “Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle”, having regard to the constitutional complaint submitted by Ltd. “Autofavorīts”.
Linked case: 2014-10-03