The Norm that Envisages the Right to Refuse to Initiate Legal Proceedings in Cassation is Compatible with the Satversme
On 21 October 2013 the Constitutional Court passed a judgement in Case No. 2013-02-01 “On the Compliance of Para 2 of Section 4641 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme does not envisage the obligation of the State to ensure hearing of all civil cases under the cassation procedure
Contested Norm (in italics)
If a cassation complaint formally complies with the requirements referred to in Paragraph one of this Section and if appellate instance court has not allowed a violation of the provisions of Section 452, Paragraph three of this Law, the collegium of the Senate may refuse to initiate cassation court proceedings also in the following cases: [..] 2) no doubts have arisen regarding rule of law of the judgment of an appellate instance court and the matter to be examined has no meaning in establishment of jurisdiction.
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 unites cases initiated upon the applications of the Latvian Book Publishing Trade Union and “Arkolat”, Ltd. The Applicants had been solving civil law disputes in court. The Senate of the Supreme Court (hereinafter – the Senate) in both cases adopted a decision on refusing to initiate cassation legal proceedings.
The Applicants hold that the contested norm unfoundedly restricts the right to a fair court enshrined in the Satversme.
Court Findings and Decision
On the essence of cassation instance
The Constitutional Court has repeatedly noted that the cassation procedure is aimed at uniform application and interpretation of legal norms throughout the state. In order for the court of cassation to do its work properly, i.e., to decide upon matters of principle in the application of substantial and procedural norms, the legislator, to the extent possible, should relieve it from examination of unfounded complaints. [10.1]
On the scope of the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
The Constitutional Court examined the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme in interconnection with Article 6[1] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of its application at the European Court of Human Rights. [9]
The Court recognised that Article 92 of the Satversme did not guarantee appealing against every decision within the framework of examining a case and did not envisage the obligation for the State to establish the possibility of appealing under appellate and cassation procedure in all cases. [10.2] The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme does not prohibit the State to determine, which cases and in accordance with what kind of conditions are to be heard in cassation legal proceedings. This also includes the right to grant certain discretion to the Senate to assess the need of hearing concrete cases. The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme does not envisage the obligation for the State to ensure the hearing of all civil cases in cassation procedure. [10.3]
Likewise, the right to access to court predominantly manifests itself in the fact that the State must establish a court, to which persons can turn, at least in one instance, for settling disputes. The right to access to appellate and cassation instance court does not contain the requirement that each case should be heard as to its merits and that full court judgment should be prepared. [11]
On the Senate’s decision to refuse to initiate the cassation legal proceedings
The Applicants expressed the opinion that the issue on the legality of the decision by the appellate instance court can be assessed only by initiating cassation legal proceedings and by examining the case on its merits. The Constitutional Court recognised that the cassation complaint, received by the Senate, is assessed by the collegium of Senators, inter alia, by familiarising themselves with the content of the cassation complaint, the court judgement and case materials. Essentially, this procedure can be equalled to the examination of a case in written proceedings. Moreover, cassation legal proceedings must be initiated, if even one member of the collegium of Senators has doubts about the legality of the judgement passed by the appellate instance court and the significance of the case under examination in the formation of judicature. [12]
Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm does not infringe upon the fundamental right included in the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Constitutional Court recognised Para 2 of Section 4641 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it comes into force as of the day of its official pronouncement.
[1] In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (…)
Linked case: 2013-02-01