Case Initiated with Regard to a Norm, which Defines the Amounts in which the Costs for the Assistance of an Advocate Related to Conducting a Matter are Reimbursed for
On 22 July 2014 the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Para1 of Section 44 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording of 29 November 2012) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Contested Norm
The contested norm defines the amount, in which in civil procedure the costs for the assistance of an advocate related to conducting a matter are reimbursed for. Until the amendments introduced in 29 November 2012, the norm, inter alia, envisaged that the costs for the assistance of an advocate should be reimbursed in the actual amount, however, not exceeding five per cent of the satisfied part of the claim. With the amendments to the norm the amounts of reimbursement were changed, for example, in some claims envisaging the amount of reimbursement within thirty per cent, not five per cent of the satisfied part of the claim, in others a concrete sum was established as the limit, for example, 2000 or 3000 lats. The amendments came into force on 1 January 2013.
The Norms of a Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme: “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Article 91 of the Satversme: “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.”
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.”
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 a constitutional complaint by Ivo Ržepickis. The applicant’s claim in a civil procedure was rejected, and the other party of the case demanded reimbursement of the costs for advocate’s assistance. The litigation took place in 2012 and at the beginning of 2013. If the costs for an advocate’s assistance were to be reimbursed until the moment, when the amendments to the contested norm came into force, the amount would be significantly smaller. Thus, the applicant notes that the contested norms infringe upon his legal certainty, since the law does not envisage any transitional period to the new regulation. Likewise, the norm allegedly places disproportional restrictions upon the right to a fair court and the right to own property. Finally, the norm envisages unequal treatment of persons, whose obligation to reimburse the costs for an advocate’s assistance originated after 1 January 2012, compared to persons, to whom the same duty originated prior to this date.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 22 September of this year.
The term for preparing the case is 22 December 2014. The Court shall decide upon the procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2014-31-01