The Constitutional Court has initiated a case regarding a norm of the Waste Management Law
On 5 January 2012, the First Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of the Waste Management Law, insofar as it Applies to Contracts Entered into not Applying the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement or in Non-Compliance with the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement, with Article 1 of the Satversme”.
Contested Norm
The Contested Norm establishes that until 26 July 2005 the contract entered into by and between a self-government and a municipal waste manager regarding collection, transport, reloading and storage of municipal waste shall expire within the term specified in the contract. If after 26 July 2005 the self-government and the municipal waste manager have entered into or extended the contract regarding collection, transport, reloading and storage of municipal waste, not applying the regulatory enactments regarding public procurement or in non-compliance with the regulatory enactments regarding public procurement, the referred to contract shall be terminated not later than until 1 July 2013.
The Facts
The Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia examines a matter, in the frameworks of which SIA “Lobbel” asked recognizing the action of the Riga City Council and the Department of the Environment of the Riga City Council by prohibiting the applicant to participate in waste management activities in Riga and committing it to organizing public procurement as unlawful. The Administrative Regional Court rejected the claim of the applicant based on the norms of the Waste Management Law releasing a local government form the duty to organize public procurement and conclude new agreements as long as waste management agreements concluded before 26 July 2005 are in force, including those agreements that have been concluded not applying the regulatory enactments regarding public procurement or in non-compliance with the regulatory enactments regarding public procurement.
The Applicant, the Senate of the Supreme Court holds that the Contested Norm contradicts the principle of a law-governed State since it permits respecting legal consequences occurred as a result of unlawful agreements and causes legitimate trust.
According to the Senate, an integral part of the principle of a law-governed state is justice. In the matter reviewed by the Senate, third parties having concluded agreements without participating in public tenders, as established in the Contested Norm, continue enjoying all rights that follow from such agreements, whilst such rights are denied in respect to the applicant. Section 2 (2) of the Public Procurement Law provides that the purpose of the Law is to ensure free competition of suppliers, as well as equal and fair attitude thereto. However, the Contested Norm establishes that suppliers having unlawfully obtained the right to furnish their services preserve their rights, which causes unequal and unfair situation to the applicant if compared to the above mentioned third parties. As long as agreements already concluded remain in force, the applicant would have no right to request equal and fair allocation of rights.
Taking into account the aforesaid, the Senate asks the Constitutional Court to assess compliance of the Contested Norm with Article 1 of the Satversme[1].
Legal Proceedings
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 5 March 2012, a reply on the facts of the case and legal justification thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 5 June 2012.
[1] Article 1 of the Satversme: „Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Linked case: 2012-01-01