The Constitutional Court terminated legal proceedings in a case on a legal norm on indemnification of losses caused by public administration institutions
On 5 December 2012 the Constitutional Court adopted decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2012-10-01 “On Compliance of 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.”
Contested Norms
Section 17 of the Law “On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions” (hereinafter – the Indemnification Law), which was effective at the moment of initiating the case, provides that a private person shall submit a claim regarding indemnification of losses within one year as from the date when he or she found out our should have found about the 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.”
Legal Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 92 of the Satversme: 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.
The Facts
The Applicant – the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court – is examining a case, in which a private person requests indemnification of moral harm, caused by an unlawful act issued by a public administration institution.
The Administrative District Court, on the basis of the contested norm, terminated the legal proceedings in the case, and the regional court confirmed the validity of the District Court decision, indicating, in addition, that the term of one year for claiming indemnification shall be considered in conjunction with the maximum term of five years for submitting the claim. Although the applicant had observed the one year term as from the date of coming into force of the judgement, she had exceeded the term of five years for exercising her rights.
The Applicant holds that the words of the contested norm “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” are incompatible with Section 92 of the Satversme. The Person does not have the possibility to influence the length of legal proceedings; therefore in cases, when it exceeds the term of five years, the person, in fact, loses the right to receive compensation due to reasons independent of him.
Court Findings and Ruling
The Applicant essentially contests the compliance of the words in Section 17 of the Indemnification Law “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” with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme. [6]
On 18 October 2012 the Saeima adopted the law “Amendments to the Law on Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions”, supplementing Section 17 of the Indemnification Law with second part, which provides: “If a private person has exceeded the terms referred to in the first part of this Section, then an institution, a court or a judge may restore them, based upon substantiated request by the private person, if the cause for exceeding them is recognised as justifiable”. The first part of Section 17 contains the contested norm in an unchanged wording. The amendments came into force on 1 November 2012. [8]
With the amendments introduced on 18 October 2012 the Saeima set out in Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Indemnification Law, that by 31 July 2013 private persons may submit a repeated claim on indemnification of losses, requesting that the exceeded procedural term is restored. This right is granted to persons, whose applications on indemnification of losses were rejected, because were submitted after the term set by the contested norm was exhausted. [10]
The Constitutional Court has concluded that the case concerns an issue of the application of the contested norm, which does fall within the competence of the Constitutional Court. [9] The Court also recognised that the Saeima, by introducing amendments to Section 17 of the Indemnification Law, has eliminated circumstances, which was the basis for submitting the application. The new regulation provides protection of a person’s rights in a case, when the person could not abide by term for submitting the claim for indemnification of losses, inter alia, also the five years term contested by the Applicant, due to justified reasons. [10]
Consequently the Constitutional Court terminated the legal proceedings in Case No. 2012-10-01 “On Compliance of 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.”
The Decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2012-10-01