The Constitutional Court terminates legal proceedings in a case regarding a norm in Protection Zone Law
On 2 March 2015 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in Case No. 2014-16-01 “On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36 (2) of the Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Facts
The case was initiated having regard to the application submitted by the Administrative District Court, contesting a norm in Protection Zone Law, which provided that in the coastal dune protection zone and beach it was prohibited to construct new buildings and structures and to expand the existing ones, except for the cases, where the already existing buildings and structures were renovated, restored or reconstructed. The Administrative District Court was reviewing a case, in which a person’s request to restore the property, which had been destroyed by fire, in the coastal dune protection zone of the Gulf of Riga was rejected. The contested norm was used to substantiate the rejection, stating that restoring a building on the existing foundations should be regarded as construction of a new building.
It is stated in the application that the contested norm placed the owner of the destroyed building in an unfavourable situation compared to those owners, whose buildings or constructions were not completely destroyed. It is alleged that this treatment is incompatible with the principle of equality (Article 91 of the Satversme) and disproportionately infringes upon a person’s right to own property (Article 105 of the Satversme).
The Court Findings and Ruling
The Saeima, in providing its written reply, expressed the opinion that the case should be resolved not by examining the compatibility of the contested norm with the Satversme, but via interpretation of the norm. [8, 10] At the time of drafting the contested norm, cases, when a legally constructed building had been destroyed in a fire and the owner of the building wanted to restore it, had not been considered. However, the legislator had no intention to restrict the owner’s right to restore the building in such cases. [11]
Therefore, the Constitutional Court concluded that a lacuna of law existed with regard to an owner’s right to restore a building constructed in the coastal dune protection zone that has perished in a fire. [11]
The Constitutional Court concluded that the Applicant in this case had not fully used legal methods for solving the particular dispute. The application of a legal norm in compliance with the Satversme comprises, inter alia, also finding and interpreting the applicable legal norm, as well as development of law. [13] Upon identifying deficiency in law, it must be first of all verified, whether it can be eliminated within the framework of the law itself. For example, if the law does not regulate a situation, which is similar to other situations regulated by the same law and which, in accordance with the purpose of the law, should have been regulated, the legal consequences of the similar situations should be applicable to the unregulated situation. The Constitutional Court concluded that the deficiency of law, which prohibits restorations of such a building, is to be eliminated within the framework of the law, by abiding by the general principle of law, first and foremost, the principle of legal certainty. [12]
Therefore the Constitutional Court recognised that there were no grounds for continuing legal proceedings in this case.
The decision by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2014-16-01