The Norm of the Civil Procedure Law, which Establishes the Costs related to Conducting a Matter, Complies with the Satversme
On 7 February 2014 the Constitutional Court pronounced judgement in Case No. 2013-04-01 “On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 33(3) of the Civil Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme.”
The use of quality legal assistance promotes the economy of legal proceedings as much as possible and facilitates reaching of a fairer outcome
Contested Norm
Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Law, inter alia, enumerates the costs related to conducting a matter. The contested norm – Para 1 of Section 33(1) – provides that the costs related to conducting a matter are costs related to assistance of advocates.
Norms of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme: “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and courts.”
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”
At the court hearing the Applicant’s representative specified the claim, noting that the contested norm was incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme. [15]
The Facts
The Applicant – a limited liability company “Gardie Visdari” – notes that a lawyer had represented its interests in civil law proceedings. The Applicant had won the case and wanted to collect the costs related to the lawyer’s assistance. However, the court refused to satisfy the claim, since the Applicant had not used the assistance of a sworn advocate. The court had used the contested norm to substantiate its decision.
Court Findings and Rulings
On the merits of the claim
The Constitutional Court concluded that the contested norm must be assessed insofar it prohibits the party, who has won in civil litigation, to receive compensation for the costs of legal assistance from the other party, if the aforementioned legal assistance has not been provided by an advocate. [16.2]
On the right to access to court
The Constitutional Court recognised that the State had the obligation to adopt such legal norms that regulate the issues linked with the compensation for the costs of legal assistance fairly. [19.3] The State is obliged to establish such regulation on the litigation costs that ensures accessibility of court [19.2] The case under review pertains to a situation, in which the applicant had paid for the legal assistance, which, as the applicant holds, had been necessary to conduct a matter in court effectively, but the compensation of which cannot be obtained. [18]
The Constitutional Court assessed, whether the contested norm affected the right to free access to court, by establishing, whether the norm, as to its merits, prohibited compensation of such litigation costs that should be considered as being reasonable and necessary for effectively conducting a matter at court. The Constitutional Court recognises that the legislator has broad discretion in regulating litigation costs. A procedural regulation, which does envisage compensation of the costs of a certain category of legal assistance, cannot be regarded as an obstacle to a person’s access to court, if it complies with the general principles of law. [19.4]
On the compliance of the contested norm with the principle of equality
The applicant held that the contested norm was incompatible with the Satversme because the legislator had permitted differential treatment of, on the one hand, persons, who received the legal assistance of advocates, and, on the other hand, persons, who received the legal assistance of other persons, not advocates. Therefore the Court held: in order to establish, whether the contested norm complied with Article 92 of the Satversme, its compatibility with the principle of equality enshrined in the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme, had to be assessed. [19.4]
The Constitutional Court recognised that those persons, who shared the following features, were in similar and comparable circumstances: 1) the status of a party to civil procedure; 3) the case had been adjudicated in their favour; 3) they had incurred costs in connection with the need to turn for legal assistance. [21] The Court also recognised that differential treatment had been applied to these groups of persons. [22] However, the Court recognises that the differential treatment has a legitimate aim [24] and that it complies with the principle of proportionality. [28]
The Constitutional Court recognised that the differential treatment had the legitimate aim of protecting other persons’ rights and protection of a democratic state order. With the contested norm the legislator has established the presumption regarding the quality of legal assistance provided by advocates. Quality legal assistance facilitates not only the protection of the rights of the person, who has received this assistance, but also fair and procedurally effective course of he legal proceedings. [24]
In assessing the compatibility of the norm with the principle of proportionality, the Constitutional Court, inter alia recognised that the public benefit exceeded the infringement upon a person’s rights and interests. The public benefit manifests itself as the establishment of such system of legal assistance, which ensures presumably quality, reliable and accessible legal assistance to any person who needs it, and thus protects both a person’s right to a fair court and other fundamental rights. The use of quality legal assistance promotes the economy of legal proceedings as much as possible and facilitates reaching of a fairer outcome. [28]
Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with the principle of equality and, thus, also compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force.
Linked case: 2013-14-01