The Constitutional Court initiated a case on norms of the Civil Procedure Law regulating the subject-matter of a claim
On 8 March 2012, the First Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 128 (2) Indent 3, 5 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia[1]”.
Contested Norms
The Contested Norms provide that a statement of a claim shall indicate, among the rest, the subject-matter of the claim, the facts on which the plaintiff bases his or her claim, and evidence, which corroborates such facts, as well as the claims of the plaintiff.
The Facts
The applicant – a joint-stock company “Kālija parks” had addressed the Kurzeme Regional Court [Kurzemes apgabaltiesa] by submitting a statement of a claim. On 11 October 2011, the Kurzeme Regional Court adopted a decision not to direct the application further because Section 128 (2) indents 5 and 7 have not been observed. It is indicated in the decision of the Kurzeme Regional Court that the claims should be concretized for them to be clearly stated and unambiguous, as well as understandable for the court and the defendant.
It follows from the decision of the Kurzeme Regional Court that one single statement of a claim can not contain alternative solutions based on different grounds excluding one another. Conditional claims “in case if…” are not precise and understandable; therefore a person has to decide what claim he or she wants to rise and on what grounds.
The Applicant indicated that no prohibition to submit conditional claims “in case if…” follows from the Contested Norms. However, such prohibition has been established in the case-law. According to the applicant, such situation restricts the right established in the Satversme, namely, to be aware of one’s rights.
Even if the Contested Norms do contain a prohibition to submit conditional claims “in case if…”, the right to a fair court is restricted. It is possible to apply other more lenient means to ensure that claims are clear and understandable if compared to the restriction to submit auxiliary claims.
Court proceedings
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 8 May 2012, a reply on the facts of the case and legal justification thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 8 August 2012.
[1] Article 90 of the Satversme provides: „Everyone has the right to know about his or her rights.”, whilst Article 92 of the Satversme establishes: “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: 2012-06-01