The Constitutional Court initiated a case on a legal norm on indemnification of losses caused by public administration institutions
On 9 May 2012, the Second Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of the Words “but not Later than within Five Years after Coming into Effect of the Unlawful Administrative Act issued by the Institution or the Date of having Performed the Illicit Factual Action” of Section 17 of the Law “On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia[1]”.
Contested Norm
Section 17 of the Law “On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions” provides that a private person shall submit an claim regarding indemnification of losses within one year as from the date when he or she has found out the fact of losses but not later than within five years after coming into effect of the unlawful administrative act issued by the institution or the date of having performed the illicit factual action.
The Facts
The Applicant, the Administrative Matter Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court examines a matter wherein a private person has asked to indemnify its moral harm caused by a decision of the Quality Control Inspection for Expert Examination in Medical Care and Ability to Work [Medicīnas aprūpes un darbnespējas ekspertīzes kvalitātes kontroles inspekcija] (now – Health Inspection [Veselībs inspekcija] – a direct administration institution subject to the Ministry of Health), which the court recognized as unlawful.
Based on the Contested Norm, the Administrative District Court [Administratīvā rajona tiesa] terminated proceedings in the matter and the regional court confirmed validity of the decision of the District Court by indicating that the term of one year to claim for indemnification shall be considered in conjunction with the maximum term of five years. Although the applicant did observe the term as from the date of coming into force of the judgment, he had exceeded the term of five years to exercise his right.
The Applicant holds that the words “but not later than within five years after coming into effect of the unlawful administrative act issued by the institution or the date of having performed the illicit factual action” of the Contested Norm does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia. A person does not have any possibility to influence length of legal proceedings; therefore in case when it exceeds the term of five years the person, in fact, loses his or her right to compensation for harm caused by a public institution due to circumstances that do not depend on him or her.
Legal Proceedings
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 9 July 2012, a reply on the fact of the case and legal substantiation thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 9 October 2012.
[1] Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia: “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.”
Linked case: 2012-10-01