Senate does not approve of remarks of the Prime Minister regarding absence of summons to third persons in the case of disputing election results
25. oktobris, 2007.
In the TV show of October 24 “What is going on in Latvia”, the Prime Minister Kalvitis said that the Supreme Court in the so-called elections case has passed rulings unfavourable for the third persons without hearing out the third persons. It was understood from what the Prime Minister said that by third persons he meant the People’s Party and/or the association “Association for the freedom of expression”.
The Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate considers that the remarks of the Prime Minister are ungrounded.
The senators of the Department of Administrative Cases explain that a third person in a court proceeding is a persons who may be infringed by the judgment (its operative part) by changing the scope of the rights or obligations of this person. Under the judgment dated November 3, 2006, of the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court Senate and the additional decision, no obligation was imposed on the People’s Party and/or the association “Association for the freedom of expression”. Therefore these persons in the mentioned proceeding were not regarded as third persons. If all the persons mentioned in the motivating part of the judgment were to be regarded as third persons, then, first of all, all the electors of Latvia had to be summoned in this case.
The Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate on November 3, 2006, heard the case in which the applicants – several political organizations requested cancellation of the decision of the Central Elections Commission under which the members elected to the 9th Saeima (Parliament) were determined (full text of the judgment and the decision is accessible on the website of the Supreme Court – www.at.gov.lv.). One of the main arguments of the applicants what the court had to verify was that separate parties, among them the People’s party, had had an unlawfully funded elections campaign.
The court having studied the materials of the case which were at its disposal, concluded that the amount of assets spent for the pre-election campaign of separate parties, among them – the People’s party, exceeded the set limitations of pre-election expenditures thus violating the Law on funding of political organizations (parties). With the arguments included in the motivating part of the judgment the court has answered to the considerations of the applicants. The court has to answer to essential arguments of the applicants, the senators explain.
Information prepared by Division of Communications of the Supreme Court
Author: Rasma Zvejniece, Head of the Division of Communications of the Supreme Court
E-mail: email@example.com, telephone: 7020396, 28652211