A Civil Procedure Law norm regulating subject-matter of a claim is recognized as constitutional
On 1 November 2012, the Constitutional Court adopted a judgment in the case No. 2012-06-01 “On Compliance of Section 128 (2) Indent 3, 5 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Claims of the applicant shall be reviewed in the frameworks of single proceedings only in case if interests of the parties thereto are mutually balanced and procedural justice is ensured
Contested Norms
Section 128 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law provides that a statement of a claim shall indicate, among the rest, the subject-matter of the claim (indent 3), the facts on which the plaintiff bases his or her claim, and evidence, which corroborates such facts (indent 5), as well as the claims of the plaintiff (indent 7).
Norms of a Higher Legal Forde
Article 90 of the Satversme: Everyone has the right to know about his or her rights.
Article 92 of the Satversme: Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with law. Everyone, where his or her rights are violated without basis, has a right to commensurate compensation. Everyone has a right to the assistance of counsel.
The Facts
The applicant – a joint-stock company “KĀLIJA PARKS” indicates that its statement of a claim that was addressed to the Kurzeme Regional Court [Kurzemes apgabaltiesa] has had no progress. It is indicated in the Kurzeme Regional Court decision that the claims should be concretized for them to be clearly stated and unambiguous, as well as understandable for the court and the defendant. The Court has prohibited submitting a statement of a claim with alternative claims (conditional claim “in case if…”). The Applicant indicates that no prohibition to submit conditional claims “in case if…” follows from the Contested Norms. However, such prohibition has been established in the case-law. According to the applicant, such situation restricts the right established in the Satversme, namely, to be aware of one’s rights.
Even if the Contested Norms do contain a prohibition to submit conditional claims “in case if…”, the right to a fair court is restricted.
The Saeima [Parliament] holds that the Applicant contest interpretation of the particular norm rather than the norm as such. Therefore the Saeima asked terminating proceedings insofar as it applies to compliance of the Contested Norms with Article 90 of the Satversme.
Likewise, the Saeima holds that the Applicant has not been prohibited access to court, whilst the statement of a claim did have been left without progress and the court decision contains all deficiencies of the application to be eliminated by the Applicant.
Court Findings and the Ruling
On the request of the Saeima to terminate proceedings
The Constitutional Court has indicated that, when reviewing cases on possible infringements of the fundamental rights, it is necessary to combine assessment of the infringement of the fundamental rights with examining of the case on its merits due to the nature of the infringements. When establishing whether a particular norm is clear enough to ensure that its legal regulatory framework would not contradict Article 90 of the Satversme, the Constitutional Court has already made such assessments in its case-law by examining a case on its merits [7.1].
Consequently, the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the request of the Saeima to terminate proceedings insofar as it concerns compliance of the Contested Norms with Article 90 of the Satversme [7.1.].
On the claims in respesct to procedural norms enshrined in Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme
The Constitutional Court concluded that Article 90 of the Satversme in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme establishes that procedural legal norms adopted by the legislator and regulating access to court should be clear and unambiguous enough [7.3.].
On inclusion of several claims into one statement of a claim
The Constitutional Court concluded that, in certain cases, the Civil Procedure Law permits submitting such statement of a claim before a court that contains several mutually related claims [8]. Claims included into such a statement of a claim should be concrete enough for them to be recognized as mutually related. Clarity of wording of a claim is directly related with the duty of the court to adopt an unambiguous decision [12.].
On infringement of the fundamental rights
However, the Contested Norms do prohibit including several subordinate claims (conditional claims) into one statement of a claim. Consequently, the Applicant did not have the possibility to submit a statement of a claim with the necessary content [9.].
When establishing whether the restriction of the rights established in the Contested Norms, the Constitutional Court indicated that the legislator is committed to adopt clear enough legal norms. However, legal regulatory framework should not become over-casuistic since in such a case the legal regulatory framework, taking into account changeability of legal relations or special conditions of a particular case, may turn out to be unjust [11]. Likewise, the Court indicated that the necessity to establish the content of a legal norm as such can not be recognized as anticonstitutional [11.].
Consequently, the Court recognized that the restriction of fundamental rights included in the Contested Norms has been established by law and does comply with Article 90 of the Satversme [11.].
The court ruled that the legitimate aim of the Contested Norms is protection of rights of other persons. The Contested Norms protect the right of the defendant because it commits the plaintiff to provide a clear wording of its claims, as well as to provide evidence of their validity. The defendant is ensured the possibility to understand what is the purpose of the plaintiff when addressing the court and this allows him or her getting ready for refuting of the claim as well as possible [12.].
Finally, the Constitutional Court concluded that the restriction included into the Contested Norms is mutually proportional. The Civil Procedure Law permits the plaintiff to submit such a statement of a claim that contains several mutually related claims. The Court should assess which of the claims can not be recognized as mutually related and examination of which of the claims in the frameworks of legal proceedings is inadmissible. Claims included into the statement of a claim shall be reviewed in the frameworks of single proceedings only in case if interests of the parties thereto are mutually balanced and procedural justice is ensured [13.3.5.].
The Constitutional Court recognized Section 128 (2) indent 3, 5 and 7 as compliant with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall come into force on the date of publishing it.
Linked case: 2012-06-01