The Norm of the Civil Procedure Law, which Regulates Submitting a Protest, Complies with the Satversme
On 9 January 2014 the Constitutional Court passed a judgement in the case No. 9. 2013-08-01 “On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The institute of protest exists within the civil procedure to eliminate substantial mistakes made by courts and to ensure justice.
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 Case was initiated, having regard to the applications submitted by the limited liability company SIA “VK Estate”, as well as Dzintars Abuls and Velta Lazda. The Applicants hold that the contested norms infringe upon the applicants’ right to rely that those issues, which have already been examined by a court ruling, which has come into effect, will not be re-examined (the principle of res judicata), and also that the enforcement of this ruling will not be delayed. The contested norms allegedly threaten the procedural equality of parties, thus leading to the violation of the right to a fair court.
Court Findings and Ruling
On the right to a fair court
The Constitutional Court noted that the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme envisaged the State’s obligation to ensure examination of a case in a procedure, in which, abiding by the principles of a judicial state, a fair judgement is adopted. [6] The principle res judicate is also included in the content of the right to a fair court. [7]
On the restriction of right and its purpose
The right to a fair court may be restricted insofar the right is not deprived of its substance. The Constitutional Court recognizes that the restriction to right had been established by a law, adopted in due procedure [10], and that it has a legitimate aim – ensuring justice and protecting the rights of other persons. The prosecutor’s protest, envisaged by the contested norms, exists to eliminate significant errors made by courts and to ensure justice. [11]
On the proportionality of restriction and collision of principles
The Constitutional Court concluded that in those cases, when the ruling by a first instance court had not been appealed against because of reasons independent of the parties to the case, the submitting of a protest was the only way to ensure justice and the protection of a person’s rights, when a ruling by a first instance court, which was final, not subject to appeal or which had not been appealed against, had been adopted and had come into effect, but contained significant violations of substantial and procedural legal norms. [13.2] The institute of protest has been created as the ultimate instrument for right protection – an additional guarantee in the absence of other legal remedies. [17]
The Court noted that the contested norms applied to a field where the principle of legal certainty and the principle of justice collided. [14] The Senate of the Supreme Court has the obligation to find a balance between these principles within the framework of the concrete case. In accordance with the principle of res judicata no one has the right to request re-examination of a final judgement, which has come into effect, with the aim to achieve re-examination of the case. The only grounds for revoking a judgement could be if it caused significant violations of human rights, the rights and lawful interests of several persons or other public interests to be protected by law. [17.3]
Thus, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested norms created a mechanism, which allowed examining the principle of both justice and the principle of legal stability (res judicata principle) in their interconnection. [17.3]
The contested norms ensure the right to a fair court and are compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
Simultaneously the Constitutional Court pointed to the Saeima’s obligation to ensure that the examination of cases, examined on the basis of a protest, is not long. Exceedingly long term for submitting a protest might lead to uncertainty of rulings that have come into effect. Thus, it is the obligation of the Saeima to consider the term for submitting the protest, envisaged by the contested norm. [18.2]
The judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it will come into effect as of the day of its official publication.
Linked case: 2013-08-01