The Norm on the Criteria for being Released from Administrative Liability in the Case of Pettiness of the Crime Complies with the Satversme
On 19 November 2013 the Constitutional Court passed a judgement in Case No. 2013-09-01 “On the Compliance of the Words of Section 21(2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code “if the fine intended for it does not exceed thirty lats”, with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.”
The State must ensure that persons with special needs are able to move around freely, to park a vehicle in the parking-place envisaged for it and, thus, exercise their rights.
Contested Norm
Section 21 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code envisages the possibility to release a person from administrative liability in case of pettiness of the violation. Its second part provides that an administrative violation, committed in road traffic, if the fine intended for it does not exceed thirty lats, and if this violation has not caused threat to other participants in road traffic or property thereof, may be considered as petty.
Norm 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 the courts.”
The Facts
The application was submitted by the Administrative District Court. It is examining an administrative violations case – the parking of a vehicle in an inappropriate place. The person had parked the car in a parking-place envisaged for persons with special needs. The sanction envisaged by law for this violation is monetary fine in the amount of 40 lats.
The Administrative District Court noted that the law allows releasing a person from administrative liability, if the violation is petty, however, if the violation has been committed in road traffic, then an additional criterion for pettiness has been envisaged by law – the amount of the fine (30 lats). The Administrative District Court holds that this regulation is incompatible with the principle of equality.
Court Findings and Ruling
On the legislator’s discretion in defining the penal policy
The Constitutional Court noted that the legislator has broad discretion to define sanctions for concrete violations, as well as to envisage conditions for releasing a person from liability for them. The legislator, in adopting this regulation, usually follows the notions, opinions and values accepted by society. [10]
On the need to ensure special protection for the rights of disabled persons
The Constitutional Court took into consideration that as regards the particular administrative violation the person had been sanctioned for parking a car in a parking-place envisaged for disabled persons. [13.4]
The Court, inter alia, analysing Latvia’s international commitments, noted that it was important that parking-places were available for persons with special needs. It can be difficult for persons with special needs to access publicly important locations with the their private vehicles. Persons with special needs should be ensured the same accessibility of public infrastructure as other persons. The State must ensure that a person with special needs can move around freely, place his or her vehicle in a parking-place especially envisaged for it and thus exercise his or her rights. [13.4]
On the compliance of the contested norm with the principle of equality
The contested norm pertains to the field of road traffic, where the legislator has the obligation to protect the other road traffic participants’ rights to life, health and property. [11.2]
The applicant noted that the contested norm prohibited the court to set the penalty for each particular administrative violation individually. However, the Constitutional Court also recognised that the large number of administrative violations committed in road traffic (400 – 500 thousand annually) was a sufficiently serious indication to allow that the legislator decides to introduce fixed sanctions. It must be taken into consideration that decisions on such violations are taken both by officials of executive power and of judicial power. In a situation like this, it is permissible that the legislator opts for complying with the principle of procedural economy. [12]
The Court also noted that in this situation the legislator had the right to determine that the set of measures aimed at protecting the life and health of a person should be given priority, both compared to the obligation imposed upon a private person to pay the fine for the committed violation, and compared to the discretion of an official or a court to recognize the committed administrative violation as petty. [13.2]
Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with the principle of equality.
The Constitutional Court recognised the words of Section 21(2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code “if the fine intended for it does not exceed thirty lats”, as compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme”.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it comes into force as of the day of its pronouncement.
Linked case: 2013-09-01