The Constitutional Court initiates a case on the right of legal person to a fair compensation
On 12 December 2011, the First Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Contested Norm
Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions provides that a legal person (businessman) shall have the right to compensation only in case of personal losses caused to reputation of its transactions, commercial secret and copyright.
Facts
The Administrative Case Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court adjudicates a matter, in the frameworks of which the association “Daugavas vanagi Latvijā” have contested a decision of the Riga City Executive Director to organize a procession and asked to compensate moral detriment – 5 000 LVL to each. The Administrative District Court [Administratīvā rajona tiesa] annulled the decision of the Executive Director and rejected the claim regarding compensation of detriment based on the Contested Norm.
The Applicant, the Senate of the Supreme Court, holds that the legal regulatory framework included into the Contested Norm restrict the rights of persons in a non-proportional manner. By referring to the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia stating that the right to compensation is a general guarantee, indicates that in practice it considers this right as an effective remedy. However, the Contested Norm restricts exercise of this right. Consequently, contrary to what has been established in the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme, it prohibits the courts assessing circumstances of a particular case to consider whether an ungrounded infringement of rights has taken place entitling a person to a commensurate and fair compensation.
Taking into account the aforesaid, the Senate asks the Constitutional Court to assess compliance of the Contested Norm with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme[1].
Legal Proceedings
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 14 February 2012, a reply on the facts of the case and legal justification thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 12 May 2010.
[1] Satversmes 92. pants: „Ikviens var aizstāvēt savas tiesības un likumiskās intereses taisnīgā tiesā. Ikviens uzskatāms par nevainīgu, iekams viņa vaina nav atzīta saskaņā ar likumu. Nepamatota tiesību aizskāruma gadījumā ikvienam ir tiesības uz atbilstīgu atlīdzinājumu. Ikvienam ir tiesības uz advokāta palīdzību.”
Linked case: 2011-21-01