The amount of State compensation for several victims in the event of death of a person is unconstitutional
On 27 June, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgement in case No. 2024-07-01. The Court held that Section 7(1) and Section 71(4) of the Law “On State Compensation to Victims”, insofar as they determine the maximum amount of State compensation to be granted in the event of death of a person, providing for its distribution in proportion to the number of victims and thus failing to ensure fair and proportionate compensation, do not comply with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution. The Court stressed that the amount of State compensation for several victims of the death of a person may prove to be merely symbolic and manifestly insufficient, failing to achieve the purpose of the Law on State Compensation to Victims and contrary to human dignity.
The contested provisions provide that the maximum amount of the State compensation to be disbursed to a victim of a criminal offence shall be five minimum monthly wages determined in the Republic of Latvia. Whereas if as a result of a criminal offence death of a person has occurred and several persons have been recognised as victims in criminal proceedings, the State compensation shall be disbursed to such persons dividing it in proportion to the number of victims. The contested provisions implement Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 on compensation to victims of crime.
The case was initiated before the Constitutional Court on the basis of the application submitted by the Administrative District Court. It is examining an administrative case brought by a number of natural persons seeking more favourable administrative measures to increase their State compensation. The applicant considers that the State compensation in case of death of a person is not fair and proportionate for each victim if its maximum amount is distributed proportionally among several victims. The legislator has not allegedly given either the institution or the court the power to assess whether the amount of State compensation to be paid to the victims constitutes adequate compensation.
The Court stressed that it is the perpetrator who has the primary obligation to make adequate reparation and that, in general, the State has no legal obligation to assume full reparation in his place. The contested provisions are only a part of the overall system of remedies established to provide the victim with compensation for the damage caused to him or her by a criminal offence and, therefore, the whole system must be assessed in its entirety. The Court concluded that the legislator had adopted a legal framework which allows the victim to seek compensation from the perpetrator of the criminal offence in criminal and civil proceedings, while State compensation is a mechanism which provides the victim with timely State support in a simplified procedure. Thus, the Court held that the legislator had established a legal framework which, in cases where the death of a person is the result of a criminal offence, allows the victim to protect the rights violated and to obtain adequate compensation. However, there may be cases where the victim cannot obtain adequate compensation from the perpetrator, and State compensation is the victim’s only redress for the harm caused by the criminal offence.
The Court pointed out that a State compensation system does not have to give the institution or the court discretion in determining the amount of compensation. However, when setting a fixed amount of compensation, the legislator must ensure that it is fair and proportionate in each case. The budgetary interests of the State cannot in themselves, without other objective considerations, justify the State’s failure to fulfil its obligation to provide fair and proportionate compensation for the death of a person as a result of a criminal offence.
The Constitutional Court concluded that although the proportional distribution of compensation according to the number of victims was consistent with the provisions of the Directive; however, in the case under examination by the applicant, the compensation granted to each victim – 620 euro – for the death of a person resulting from a criminal offence could not be regarded as fair and proportionate. It would be even more unfair and disproportionate in cases where the number of victims is even higher. Compensation in such cases will inevitably be symbolic and clearly insufficient. Such compensation is contrary to human dignity. Thus, the contested provisions, in so far as they determine the amount of State compensation to be granted in the event of the death of a person, providing for its distribution in proportion to the number of victims, do not always ensure fair and proportionate compensation. Therefore, the Constitutional Court held that the contested provisions were incompatible with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution and invalid as of 1 January 2026.
However, with regard to the applicants in the administrative case and other persons who, until the new legal regulation adopted by the legislator enters into force, have requested state compensation and continue to protect their fundamental rights through general legal remedies, but in respect of whom the administrative proceedings have not yet been concluded, the Constitutional Court recognised the contested provisions as null and void from the date of publication of the judgement.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal; the judgement shall enter into force as of the date of its publication in the official gazette Latvijas Vēstnesis.
Linked case: 2024-07-01