The Meeting of Chairs of Senate Departments convened by the President of the Supreme Court examined an issue submitted by a judge of the Vidzeme District Court regarding the jurisdiction of a case in order to determine which court should examine a claim of a private individual against a municipality for compensation for losses and non-material damage.

The losses and non-material damage suffered by the claimant, who has appealed to the District Court, are related to the fatal injury to her daughter, who ran under a solid wood swing and was hit by it. The swing was installed on municipal land.

The mother had not been able to obtain compensation for these losses either through criminal proceedings, in which the accused former municipal employee was acquitted, or through administrative proceedings, because due to the prolongation of the criminal proceedings, the claimant had missed the three-year period provided for by law to apply to the administrative court. Unable to ensure that the issue of compensation be considered in criminal or administrative proceedings, the claimant requested that compensation be granted in civil proceedings.

The Meeting of Chairs of Senate Departments acknowledged that the claim for the damage and losses caused is essentially related to the actual actions of the municipality and as such should be considered by the administrative court. However, the consideration of the specific claim in the administrative court is no longer possible, since the deadline for submitting the application has passed.

The Meeting of Chairs of Senate Departments considered whether the claim should be examined by a court of general jurisdiction as an exception, taking into account that in the specific case it is a question of compensation related to the infringement of the right to life. This right provides for the state's obligation not only to take preliminary measures to prevent accidents that may endanger a person's life, but also to provide the victim with legal means to obtain compensation if an accident occurs.

These circumstances should also have been taken into account by the Administrative District Court when assessing the time limit allocated for appealing the actual action. Although the Administrative Procedure Law does not provide for the renewal of the three-year time limit, this does not exclude the court's obligation to consider whether, in the present case, the observance of a human right might take precedence over the observance of the procedural order established by the legal provision. The Administrative District Court has not balanced the interests of the protection of fundamental rights and procedural order.

Consequently, the Meeting of Chairs of Senate Departments recognized that, as a matter of exception, taking into account the need to ensure the claimant the fundamental rights established in the Constitution, which in the present case are more important than the issue of the separation of judicial competence, the proceedings may be continued in a court of general jurisdiction.

In accordance with Section 50, Paragraph five of the law "On Judicial Power", the President of the Supreme Court convenes Meetings of Chairs of Senate Departments to resolve the issue of jurisdiction of a case submitted by a judge or court. The President participates in these meetings with voting rights.

 

Information prepared by the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court

komunikacija@at.gov.lv; telephone: +371 67020396, +371 28652211