The norm of the Civil Procedure Law regulating the procedure for submitting ancillary complaints does comply with the Satversme
On 29 October 2012, the Constitutional Court adopted a judgment in the case No. 2012-05-01 “On Compliance of Section 141 (1) insofar as It Fails to Provide the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint for a Decision Rejecting an Application on Securing of a Claim and a Decision Rejecting an Application on Revocation of the Security of a Claim, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The restriction to the plaintiff to appeal against a court decision rejecting an application on revocation of the security of the claim does not infringe the fundamental rights established in Article 92 of the Satversme
Contested Norm
Section 141 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law: „An ancillary complaint may be submitted in regard to the decisions referred to in Section 140, Paragraphs two, three and five of this Law and the decision with which the application for the securing of evidence is refused. In the case mentioned in Section 140 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law, an ancillary complaint can be submitted for a court decision insofar as it commits the plaintiff to secure losses”.
Legal Norm of a 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, a joint-stock company “Swedbank” indicates that a decision of the Panel of the Civil Case Department of the Riga Regional Court has revoked security of claims established based on an application of the JSC “Swedbank”. The Contested Norm prohibited the Applicant to appeal against the decision.
The Applicant holds that that the Contested Norm establishes an ungrounded inequality between rights of parties since the defendant has the right to appeal against a court decision rejecting an application on revocation of claim security.
However, the Saeima indicates that the purpose of the effective wording of the Contested Norm is to improve regulatory framework on claim security by adapting it to what has been established in Judgment of 30 March 2010 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2009-85-01 and the judgment of 4 October 2010 in the case No. 2010-15-01. According to the Saeima, the plaintiff has the possibility to provide all necessary argumentation and evidence regarding the necessity of securing of a claim by submitting an application on securing of a claim and by refuting the defendant’s application regarding revocation of claim security. Moreover, the Contested Norm restricts litigation in respect to issues that are not related to examination of the case on its merits and thus reduces all possible procedural delays and assuring a faster and more effective adjudication.
Other summoned persons also indicate that the Contested Norm ensures adjudication within a reasonable term.
Court Findings and the Ruling
On the previous Constitutional Court judgment and equality of the parties
Already in the judgment in the case No. 2009-85-01, the Constitutional Court assessed amount of procedural rights of a plaintiff and that of a defendant, as well as their perspectives to appeal against court decision regarding securing of claims issues [9]. The Constitutional Court recognized that (according to the legal regulatory framework effective at that time), a plaintiff and a defendant enjoy unequal situation in legal proceedings; consequently, equality of procedural rights is not being guaranteed. In the present judgment, the Court has indicated that “equality of procedural rights of the parties would be correlated with procedural economy even in case if the defendant would have at least the right to submit an ancillary complaint regarding a decision rejecting an application on revocation of the security of a claim” [8.3].
Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law that were adopted on 4 August 2011 establish the right of the defendant to submit an ancillary complaint regarding a decision rejecting an application on revocation of the security of a claim [8.4].
The Constitutional Court concluded that, by means of the above mentioned amendments, the Saeima has not restricted the amount of rights of a plaintiff. It has only supplemented the amount of rights of the defendant according to what has been established in the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2009-85-01. Consequently, procedural rights of the parties are now balanced, and the Contested Norm establishes equality of rights of the parties [9].
On restriction of the right to appeal
The Constitutional Court concluded that the Contested Norm does restrict the right to appeal that follows from the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 92 of the Satversme [10].
On the legitimate aim of the Contested Norm and proportionality of the restriction of the fundamental rights
The Constitutional Court recognized that the legitimate aim of the Contested Norm is protection of rights of other persons, namely, the norm ensures a faster and more effective adjudication of disputes, reduces workload of courts and thus protect the right of other person to a fair trial [12].
The Constitutional Court assessed which rights pertaining to the content of the fundamental right to a fair trial – the right to appeal or the right to an effective and timely adjudication – should be regarded as prior in the present case [16].
The Court established that the decision regarding securing of a claim is being adopted based on argumentation of one of the parties only, whilst, the decision regarding revocation of the security of a claim is adopted based on argumentation of both parties [16.2]. Consequently, although the Contested Norm does not establish the possibility to appeal against a decision on revocation of the security of a claim, it ensures proper legal proceedings [16.2].
Finally, the Constitutional Court concluded that the benefit gained from the Contested Norm by the society is greater than the restriction established to the rights of a person [16.3].
The Constitutional Court recognized Section 141 (1) insofar as it fails to provide the right to submit an ancillary complaint for a decision satisfying an application on revocation of the security of a claim as compliant with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall come into force on the date of publishing it.
Linked case: 2012-05-01