A Case on Removal of Vehicles in Cases of Administrative Violations Initiated

14.12.2012.

On 12 December 2012 the 1^st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On Compliance of the first part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Contested Norm

The contested norm, inter alia, provides that property and documents, which are an object of violation or an instrument for the committing of a violation, and which are found during detention, inspection of a person, property or site, as well as at the time when the violation is detected, are removed by the institutions indicated in the LAVC or by authorised officials of these institutions. The removed property and documents are handed in for storage by the institutions or officials, which have the right to remove property and documents, according to the procedures specified by the Cabinet, until the decision in the administrative violation case comes into force, but if an administrative violation has been committed, provided for in paragraph seven of Section 149⁴ of LAVC or paragraph four of Section 149⁵ or Section 149¹⁵ (except for the violation provided for in paragraph six of this Section), up to the implementation of the fine applied.

Norm of Higher Legal Force

Article 105 of the Satversme provides: “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

Liene Vēgnere, the submitter of the constitutional complaint, indicates that the vehicle owned by her was removed at a time, when another person, who committed an administrative violation, drove it. The vehicle has been handed in for storage until the moment the person, who committed the violation, pays the applied fine. Thus, the Applicant has been denied her right to use her property – the vehicle – until the person, who committed the violation, pays the imposed fine and the vehicle storage costs. The Applicant holds that such restriction of her right to own property is disproportional.

The Legal Proceedings

The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to submit a reply on the facts of the case and the legal substantiation by 12 February 2013.

The term for preparing the case is 12 May 2013.

Linked case: 2012-23-01