Legal proceedings terminated in the case regarding the rights of perons, whose property has been seized, to appeal against a decision in an administrative violation case in the part regarding his or her property
On 11 March 2015 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in case No. 2014-33-01 “On Complinace of Section 279(1) and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Artice 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Facts
The case been initiates having regard to the constitutional complaint submitted by Limited liability company “Tavex” (hereinafter – the Applicant).
The State Revenue Service, conducting a thematic audit of the Applicant, established violations. A report was drawn up in the administrative violation case and, in accordance with it, property owned by the Applicant was seized. In connection with the respective violation the Chairperson of the Applicant’s Board was held administratively liable. The Applicant, in the procedure established by law, appealed against the decision by the State Revenue Service to its Director General, who recognised it as being lawful. Therefore the Applicant turned to court, however, on the basis of the contested norms, which directly provide that a decision adopted by an institution in an administrative violation case may be appealed against only by the person, who has been held administratively liable, or the victim, the court refused to initiate a case, terminated the initiated case and rejected the auxiliary complaint.
The Applicant holds that the contested norms, insofar they do not envisage the right of another person, who has not been held administratively liable and is not the victim, but whose rights or lawful interests have been violated, to appeal against a decision adopted by an institution in an administrative violation case, are incompatible with the Satversme.
The Court Findings and Ruling
On 12 February 2015, the institution, which adopted the contested act, – the Saeima adopted the law “Amendments to the Latvian Administrative Violations Code”, which, inter alia, introduced amendments also to the contested norms. The new regulation envisages that the right to appeal against a decision adopted in an administrative violations case is granted not only to a person, who has been held administratively liable, or the victim, but also the affected owner of property – in the part regarding his or her property.
The legislator has envisaged transitional provisions for persons, whose rights had been infringed upo before the new regulation had entered into force, by defining that the affected owner of property, whose rights had been infringed upon without grounds before 9 March 2015 and who has started defending his or her infirnged rights by general legal remedies, may by 10 April 2015 appeal against a decision adopted in an administrayive violations case in the part regarding his or her property.
In view of the fact that the Applicant, by appealing against the decision on seizing property to the Directot General of the State Revenue Service and later appealing against it to court, has started defendind its rights that had been infirnged upon by general legal remedies, it has the right to appeal against the decision adopted in the administrative violations case in the part regarding its property by 10 April 2015.
Therefore the Constiutional Court recognised that it had no grounds to continue legal proceedings in this case.
The decision by the Constitutional Court is not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2014-33-01