The Constitutional Court Initiates a Case Regarding a Norm of the Civil Procedure Law, which Regulates Submitting a Protest
On 26 April 2013 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court Initiated Case “On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme”.
The Contested Norms
Section 483 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that a protest regarding a court adjudication that has come into effect may be submitted to the Senate by the prosecutor general or the chief prosecutor of the Department for the Protection of the Rights of Persons and the State, provided that no more than 10 years have elapsed since the adjudication came into effect.
Section 484 of the Civil Procedure law envisages that the grounds for submitting a protest regarding court adjudication are the breach of substantive or procedural norms of law as has been ascertained in cases which have only been adjudicated in a first instance court, if the court adjudication has not been appealed pursuant to procedures prescribed by law due to reasons independent of the participants in the matter, or the infringement, pursuant to a court adjudication, of the rights of State or local government institutions or of such persons as were not participants in the matter.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court.“
The Facts
The Applicants – the limited liability company SIA ”VK Estate”, Dzintars Abuls and Velta Lazda – had been parties of judicial proceedings, in which an adjudication had been made, regarding which a prosecutor had submitted a protest regarding significant breaches of legal norms. The Applicants hold that they have the right to rely that those issue, which have already been examined with the court adjudication that has come into effect, will not be re-examined, and that the enforcement of the adjudication will not be delayed. The contested norms allegedly cause unjustifiable infringement of the fundamental right to fair court.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 26 June 2013.
The term for preparing the case is 26 September 2013.
Linked case: 2013-08-01