The Constitutional Court decides not to suspended legal proceedings in the civil case regarding the JSC „Latvijas Krājbanka”
On 21 March 2012, the Constitutional Court received requests by Santa Anča, Jevgēnija Dimpere, Ina Inkēna and Raimonds Pauls (the Applicants) to apply an interim regulation in the case No 2012-07-01 that was initiated by the Constitutional Court on 8 March 2012, and to suspend proceedings in the civil case No C04523311 insofar as it applies to review of the application of the administrator regarding launching of bankruptcy procedure in respect to “Latvijas Krājbanka”.
The Applicants hold that launching of bankruptcy procedure would make it impossible to implement restoration and restoration of solvency of the JSC “Latvijas Krājbanka”. In case if the Constitutional Court would recognize the Contested Norms as non-compliant with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, launching of bankruptcy procedure would make execution of the Constitutional Court judgment impossible, whilst the right of the Applicants to own property would be irreversibly infringed.
Court Findings and the Ruling
On 27 March 2012, the Constitutional Court examined the above mentioned request at a court hearing and indicated that, pursuant to Article 85 of the Satversme and Article 1 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Constitutional Court shall perform control of legal norms, namely, it would verify compliance of legal norms with legal norms of a higher legal force. In the frameworks of the case No 2012-07-01, the Constitutional Court can not assess the kind or substantiation of legal proceedings applied in the result of the insolvency procedure.
When assessing the case on its merits, the Constitutional Court can not only decide on compliance of contested norm with a legal norm of a higher legal force, but also establish a particular moment, as from which the contested norm would lose its effect, as well as the procedure for execution of a judgment. The Court holds that the Applicants’ request does not present sufficient arguments that would substantiate the necessity to apply interim measures before examination of the case No 2012-07-01 on its merits.
The second sentence of Section 19.2 (3) of the Constitutional Court Law provides that “initiation of a matter in the Constitutional Court shall prohibit adjudication of the relevant civil matter, criminal matter or administrative matter in a general jurisdiction court until the moment when a Constitutional Court verdict has been pronounced. Section 214 of the Civil Procedure Law commits the court to stay proceedings in case “the Constitutional Court has initiated a matter in relation to the constitutional complaint submitted by the parties or a third person”.
The Constitutional Court regarded it as necessary to refrain from intervention into the course of the particular civil case by giving the possibility to the general jurisdiction court to select the most appropriate action model in the particular case. However, if the general jurisdiction court, when adjudicating, would adopt a judgment that would considerably infringe the fundamental rights of the Applicants, in respect to which a case is initiated in the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court, based on Section 19.2 (5) of the Constitutional Court Law can decide on suspension of execution of the respective judgment.
Considering the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court refused suspending court proceedings in the civil case No C04523311 insofar as it applies to review of the application of the administrator regarding launching of bankruptcy proceeding of the joint stock company “Latvijas Krājbanka”.
Linked case: 2012-07-01