A Case Regarding the Binding Regulations of the Riga City Council Initiated
On 17 December 2013 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On the Compliance of Para 4.3 and Para 4.4 of the Binding Regulations of 8 July 2008 of the Riga City Council No. 125 “On Taking Care of Riga City Territory and Maintenance of Buildings” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
Contested Norms (in italics)
Commercial companies in accordance with the concluded agreement, associations of apartment owners, owners, holders, authorised managers, users-leaseholders of housing property, land plots and other territories, shall ensure: [..]
4.3. taking care of the adjacent territory (mowing lawns, cleaning of pavements, waste collection and removal);
4.4. cleaning the pavements, which exist within the immoveable property and the adjacent territory, except the stops of public transport, of snow and ice, up to the surface of the pavement, strewing of anti-slip materials, as well as cleaning of yard paths and strewing every day before 8.00, and, if necessary, for the whole day, formation of snowbanks is admissible, it these do not hinder the movements of pedestrians and if the requirements of Para 13.2 of these binding regulations are complied with.
Norm with 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 having regard to the constitutional complaint submitted by Uldis Kaldovskis, which notes that the applicant owns real estate in Riga. In compliance with the contested norms he has to ensure taking care of the territory adjacent to his property – by doing it himself or by employing an employee, he also must purchase materials, working clothes, etc. Moreover, the contested norms do not envisage any restrictions or easements, for example, if the adjacent territory is too large. Thus, the infringement upon the applicant’s right to own property is disproportional.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Riga City Council to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 17 February 2014.
The term for preparing the case is 17 May 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2013-20-03