gg ald 2019 1 - at.gov.lv

GG_ALD_2019_1.inddLatvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019. – Rga: Latvijas Republikas Augstk tiesa, 2020. – 1184 lpp. (VII, A-432, C-414, K-326)
Krjumu sagatavoja:
Administratvo lietu departamenta priekšsdtja Mg.iur. Veronika Krmia
Augstks tiesas Judikatras un zintniski analtisks nodaas konsultants Mg.iur. Kaspars Kukmilks
• Latvijas Republikas Senta Civillietu departamenta spriedumi un lmumi:
Civillietu departamenta priekšsdtjs Mg.iur. Aigars Strupišs
Civillietu departamenta zintniski analtiskais konsultants LL.M., Mg.iur. Reinis Odiš
• Latvijas Republikas Senta Kriminllietu departamenta lmumi:
Kriminllietu departamenta priekšsdtjs Mg.iur. Pteris Dzalbe
Kriminllietu departamenta zintniski analtisk padomniece Mg.iur. Nora Magone
Krjuma redaktores:
© Latvijas Republikas Augstk tiesa, 2020
ISBN 978-9934-508-61-5
Priekšvrds ........................................................................................................................................VI
Preface ...............................................................................................................................................VII
Krjuma “Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019” Administratvo lietu departamenta nolmumu daas anotcija .....................A-6
Summary of the Section of the Rulings by the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia 2019 .............................................................................................................................. A-21
I. Administratv procesa tiesbu principi ................................................................. A-39
II. Administratvais process ties .................................................................................... A-50
III. Atldzinjuma prasjumi ............................................................................................. A-106
IV. Bvniecbas tiesbas ..................................................................................................... A-136
VI. Tiesbas uz informciju un trauksmes clju aizsardzba ........................... A-202
VII. Nodoku tiesbas ............................................................................................................ A-276
Citu avotu rdtjs, uz kuriem publictajos nolmumos dotas atsauces ......................................................................................................................... A-430
Publicto nolmumu rdtjs pc lietu numuriem ........................................... A-432
IV
Krjuma “Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019” Civillietu departamenta nolmumu daas anotcija ..............................................C-7
Summary of the Section of the Rulings by the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia 2019 ............................. C-14
I. Nolmumi, kas izriet no saistbu tiesbm ............................................................ C-22
II. Nolmumi, kas izriet no mantojuma tiesbm ...................................................C-140
III. Nolmumi, kas izriet no darba tiesbm ..............................................................C-162
IV. Nolmumi, kas izriet no komerctiesbm ............................................................C-184
V. Nolmumi, kas izriet no apdrošinšanas tiesbm ..........................................C-211
VI. Nolmums, kas izriet no autortiesbm ...............................................................C-242
VII. Nolmums, kas izriet no lietu tiesbm un zemesgrmatu tiesbm ..............................................................................................................................C-275
VIII. Nolmumi, kas izriet no civilprocesa tiesbm ..................................................C-307
IX. Nolmums, kas izriet no tiesisks aizsardzbas procesa tiesbm ............C-354
X. Nolmums, kas izriet no makstnespjas procesa tiesbm .......................C-359
Jdzienu alfabtiskais rdtjs .......................................................................................C-369
Tiesbu aktu rdtjs ............................................................................................................C-378
Citu avotu rdtjs, uz kuriem publictajos nolmumos dotas atsauces ..........................................................................................................................C-411
Publicto nolmumu rdtjs pc lietu numuriem ............................................C-414
Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019
V
Krjuma “Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019” Kriminllietu departamenta lmumu daas anotcija ..........................................K-5
Summary of the Section of the Rulings by the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia 2019 ....... K-20
I. Lmums Kriminllikuma Visprgs daas piemrošanas jautjumos ..... K-37
II. Lmumi Kriminllikuma Sevišs daas piemrošanas jautjumos .......... K-45
III. Lmumi Kriminlprocesa likuma piemrošanas jautjumos .................... K-184
Jdzienu alfabtiskais rdtjs ...................................................................................... K-287
Tiesbu aktu rdtjs ........................................................................................................... K-296
Citu avotu rdtjs, uz kuriem publictajos lmumos dotas atsauces ......................................................................................................................... K-325
Publicto lmumu rdtjs pc lietu numuriem ................................................. K-326
Par grmatas struktru
Grmatu veido trs daas – katram Senta departamentam sava – ar atširgu lappušu numerciju. Katras lappuses numuram pievienots burts, kas norda attiecgo departamentu: A – Administratvo lietu departaments, C – Civillietu departaments, K – Kriminllietu departaments.
Katrai grmatas nolmumu daai ir savs izvrsts satura rdtjs, k ar anotcija. Tpat katrai daai atseviši pc dadiem kritrijiem izveidoti vairki rdtji, kas paldzs atrast interesjošo nolmumu.
Krjum publictie nolmumi nav uzskatmi par spriedumu un lmumu norakstiem, jo tajos var bt izdartas nelielas redakcionlas un stilistiskas izmaias, kas nemaina nolmumu saturu. Š iemesla d krjum publictie nolmumi var atširties ar no Augstks tiesas judikatras nolmumu arhv pieejamajiem. Nolmumos izmantot numercija saglabta.
Izdevuma satura rdtjs
Ar gandarjumu par paveikto 2019.gad nododam lastjiem Senta nolmumu krtjo krjumu. Kopš aizskts tradcijas 1996.gad sagatavota nu jau divdesmitceturt nolmumu gadagrmata. 2019.gad Sent izskattas 2942 lietas. Nolmumu krjum pc rpgas atlases izvlti juridiski interesantkie katra departamenta nolmumi. Šoreiz Administratvo lietu departamentam tie ir 28, Civillietu departamentam 25 un Kriminllietu departamentam 25 nolmumi. Vrgs lastjs bs pamanjis, ka, saldzinot ar Senta nolmumu publicšanas prakses pirmskumiem, pdjo gadu krjumos atlasts publicšanai ievrojami mazks skaits nolmumu. Vienlaikus juzsver, ka kopum Senta nolmumu pieejamba ir kuvusi ievrojami plaška un tiesbu normu piemrotjam rtka. Kopš 2019.gada skuma papildus jau pieejamajiem publiskajiem resursiem Augstks tiesas tmeka vietn un Latvijas tiesu nolmumu portl Augstk tiesa sadarbb ar VSIA “Latvijas Vstnesis” radusi iespju tiesbu aktu vietn Likumi.lv pie tiesbu normm pievienot tiešas nordes uz judikatru. Nereti tiek aizrdts, ka Senta nolmumi laika gait kuvuši garki. Senta nolmumu argumentcija ir izvrsta, jo t lietas dalbniekam nodrošina iepazšanos ar tiesas izvrtjuma apsvrumiem, vienlaikus ar noder sabiedrbai tiesas izmantots juridisks metodes izzinšanai. Nolmumu argumentcij izteikts atzias atspoguo gan aktuls tiesbu normu piemrošanas problmas, gan iezm juridisks domas attstbu. Lietu izskatšan Sent apzints problmas normatvaj reguljum ir bijis pamats vairku blakus lmumu pieemšanai, kuros vrsta likumdevja uzmanba uz normatv reguljuma nepilnbm. Lietu analz konstattas ar nepilnbas zemku instanu darb. Uz tdm nordts gan nolmumos, gan senatoru uzruns zemku instanu tiesnešiem. Tiesvedbas kvalittes uzlabošana un tiesvedbas procesu pilnveidošana bs ar turpmko gadu prioritte gan Latvijas tiess kopum, gan ar Sent. 2020.gads Sentam ir jubilejas gads. Kopš darbu atska atjaunotais Sents, bs pagjis ceturtdagadsimts. Vai tas mains tdas tradcijas k ikgadjs atskats uz btiskajiem Senta nolmumiem vien nolmumu krjum – to rds laiks.
Ivars Bikovis, Augstks tiesas priekšsdtjs
VII
Preface
We are delighted with the work done in 2019 and pleased to present another collection of Senate’s rulings. Continuing the tradition established in 1996, the twenty-fourth yearbook of rulings has been created. In 2019, 2942 cases were reviewed in the Senate. After careful selection, the collection of rulings contains the most engaging rulings of each department. This time there are 28 rulings of the Department of Administrative Cases, 25 rulings of the Department of Civil Cases and 25 rulings of the Department of Criminal Cases. An observant reader might have already noticed that, compared to the beginnings of publishing of Senate’s rulings, a significantly smaller number of rulings have been selected for publication in recent years. At the same time, it should be emphasized that, in general, the accessibility of Senate’s rulings has become significantly wider, the research of the case-law more convenient for persons applying the law. Since the beginning of 2019, in addition to the public resources already available on the Supreme Court’s website and on the portal of Latvian court rulings, the Supreme Court in cooperation with VSIA “Latvijas Vstnesis” has made it possible to add direct references to case law to legal provisions available on the website of Latvian legal acts www.likumi.lv. It is often pointed out that Senate’s rulings have become longer over time. The reasoning part of Senate’s rulings is expanded, as it provides parties to proceedings with opportunity to get acquainted with the grounds of the court’s assessment, while at the same time assisting the public in exploring legal methods used by the court. The findings expressed in the reasoning of rulings reflect topical issues of application of legal provisions and outline the development of legal considerations. The issues identified in the regulatory framework in the course of examination of cases have been the basis for the adoption of several ancillary decisions, which draw the attention of the legislator to deficiencies in the regulatory framework. As a result of analysis of cases, shortcomings in the work of lower courts have been identified. They are referred to both in the rulings and in the address of the senators to the judges of lower courts. Improving the quality of justice and developing court proceedings will remain a priority for the coming years, both in the Senate and in the Latvian courts in general. 2020 is the anniversary year for the Senate. A quarter-century has passed since the restored Senate resumed its work. Will this change traditions such as creation of annual overview of crucial Senate’s rulings contained in one collection? Time will tell.
Ivars Bikovis Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
A-3
Satura rdtjs Krjuma “Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019” Administratvo lietu departamenta nolmumu daas anotcija .....................A-6
Summary of the Section of the Rulings by the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia 2019 .............................................................................................................................. A-21
I. Administratv procesa tiesbu principi .......................................................... A-39
Principa in dubio pro civis piemrošana, izdodot privtpersonai nelabvlgu administratvo aktu (Lieta Nr. SKA-79/2019) ............................. A-39
Tiesiskuma principa saturs (tze liet Nr. SKA-148/2019) ............................ A-48
Tiesiskuma princips un likuma atrunas princips (tze liet Nr. SKA-262/2019) ...................................................................................... A-49
II. Administratvais process ties .............................................................................. A-50
“Prsteiguma” sprieduma nepieaujamba; Personas tiesbas prast atldzint nkotn sagaidmos izdevumus par juridisko paldzbu (Lieta Nr. SKA-131/2019) .............................................. A-50
Tiesas pienkums spriedum nordt savus argumentus (Lieta Nr. SKA-274/2019) .............................................................................................. A-60
Neapstrdt administratvaj akt izdarto apstku novrtjuma prskatšana cit administratvaj liet (Lieta Nr. SKA-310/2019) ............ A-75
Veselbas inspekcijas un fizisks personas pierdšanas pienkuma sadaljums strd par izmaksm no rstniecbas riska fonda; Pierdšanas standarts closakarbas konstatšanai liets par pacienta tiesbm uz atldzbu no rstniecbas riska fonda (Lieta Nr. SKA-453/2019) .............................................................................................. A-80
Procesa dalbnieka tiesbu iepazties ar lietas materiliem ierobeošanas pieaujamba (Lieta Nr. SKA-1271/2019) ................................ A-96
Prasjuma par civiltiesiska lguma vai ierakstu izmaim zemesgrmat un administratv akta atcelšanu/atzšanu par prettiesisku noširšana (tze liet Nr. SKA-1/2019) ...................................... A-104
Res judicata princips un atkpšans no t (tze liet Nr. SKA-1/2019) ........................................................................................ A-104
Piekritg tiesa Konkurences padomes administratv akta izdošanas proces pieauta procesul prkpuma konstatšanai (tze liet Nr. SKA-921/2019) ................................................................................... A-105
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta spriedumi un lmumi
A-4
Tiesbas uz atldzinjumu labvlga administratv akta atcelšanas gadjum (Lieta Nr. SKA-1409/2019) .................................................................... A-122
Tiesbas uz atldzinjumu paš upura d (Lieta Nr. SKA-1528/2019) ........................................................................................ A-128
Personas tiesbas prast atldzint nkotn sagaidmos izdevumus par juridisko paldzbu (tze liet Nr. SKA-131/2019) .................................. A-135
IV. Bvniecbas tiesbas ................................................................................................. A-136
Atbildg persona par patvagas bvniecbas novršanu koppašum (Lieta Nr. SKA-201/2019) ........................................................................................... A-150
Personas tiesbu administratv procesa krtb vrsties pret iespjami patvagu bvniecbu izmantošana (Lieta Nr. SKA-249/2019) ........................................................................................... A-161
Patvagas bvniecbas novršana primri ir pašnieka pienkums; Tiesiskuma princips un likuma atrunas princips (Lieta Nr. SKA-262/2019) ........................................................................................... A-166
V. Fizisko personu datu aizsardzba ..................................................................... A-178
Policijas darbinieku dienesta telps uzemta attla publiskošana neierobeotam personu lokam ir pieaujama sabiedrbas interess (Lieta Nr. SKA-6/2019) .................................................................................................A-178
Datu valsts inspekcijas kompetence fizisko personu datu aizsardzbas jom; Datu subjekta tiesbas vrsties ties par personas datu apstrdes prkpumiem (Lieta Nr. SKA-921/2019) ............................. A-190
Fizisks personas datu apstrde likum noteikto pienkumu izpildei (tze liet Nr. SKA-148/2019) .................................................................. A-201
VI. Tiesbas uz informciju un trauksmes clju aizsardzba ................. A-202
Informcijas izsniegšana no Uzmumu reistra vestajiem reistriem; Tiesiskuma principa saturs (Lieta Nr. SKA-148/2019)................................... A-202
Ziotja par prkpumu aizsardzba (Lieta Nr. SKA-232/2019) ............... A-218
Atklt tiesas sd izskattas kriminllietas sprieduma pieejamba (Lieta Nr. SKA-255/2019) ........................................................................................... A-235
A-5
urnlistu tiesbas saemt informciju par publisks prvaldes budeta ldzeku izlietojumu (Lieta Nr. SKA-917/2019) ............................... A-255
VII. Nodoku tiesbas ......................................................................................................... A-276
Lietderbas apsvrumu izdaršana pirms lmuma par personas iekaušanu riska personu sarakst (Lieta Nr. SKA-152/2019) ................... A-285
Ziedojuma filantropiskais raksturs k priekšnoteikums uzmumu ienkuma nodoka atlaides piemrošanai; pretpienkuma apjoma noteikšana (Lieta Nr. SKA-382/2019) ................................................................... A-295
Jdziena “uzmuma preja” interpretcija pievienots vrtbas nodoka kontekst (Lieta Nr. SKA-631/2019) ................................................... A-304
VIII. Citi ....................................................................................................................... A-318
Tiesbu priekšlaicgi pieprast vecuma pensiju rašans brdis (Lieta Nr. SKA-235/2019) ........................................................................................... A-342
Izloze iepirkuma lguma sldzja noteikšanai un šdai izlozei izvirzms prasbas (Lieta Nr. SKA-742/2019) ................................................. A-347
Darbinieka attaisnots prombtnes ietekme uz virsstundu aprinšanu pie summta darba laika; Darbinieka attaisnot prombtne k pamats atširgam virsstundu skaitam (Lieta Nr. SKA-794/2019) ......................................................................... A-354
Jdzienu alfabtiskais rdtjs ...................................................................................... A-363
Citu avotu rdtjs, uz kuriem publictajos nolmumos dotas atsauces ......................................................................................................................... A-430
Publicto nolmumu rdtjs pc lietu numuriem ........................................... A-432
A-6
Krjuma “Latvijas Republikas Senta spriedumi un lmumi 2019” Administratvo lietu departamenta nolmumu daas anotcija
1. 2019.gad apritja 15 gadi kopš administratvo tiesu izveides. K tika atzmts jubilejas konferenc, administratvs tiesas ir devušas btisku ieguldjumu Latvijas k demokrtiskas tiesiskas valsts attstb. Šaj gad Senta Administratvo lietu departaments piema kopum 951 nolmumu1 (697 kascijas tiesvedbas krtb, 251 blakus sdzbas krtb, trs pieteikumus par lietas jaunu izskatšanu sakar ar jaunatkltiem apstkiem). Augstks tiesas mjaslap Judikatras nolmumu arhvam pievienots 171 nolmums. Publicšanai šaj krjum ir izvlti 28 nolmumi.2
Anotcij tiek aplkoti ne tikai gadagrmat publictie nolmumi, bet ar sniegta sa informcija par lietm, kurs departaments ir iesniedzis pieteikumus Satversmes tiesai, lietm, kurs departaments ir piemis lmumu par prejudicil jautjuma uzdošanu Eiropas Savienbas Tiesai, k ar par lietu, kur departaments ir iesniedzis lgumu departamentu priekšsdtju sdei.
2. Pieteikumi Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesai.
Liet Nr. SKA-134/2019 (A420297115) tika iesniegts pieteikums par Brnu tiesbu aizsardzbas likuma 72.panta piekts daas 1.punkta, ciktl tas nosaka absoltu aizliegumu personai, kura sodta par noziedzgiem nodarjumiem, kas saistti ar vardarbbu vai vardarbbas piedraudjumu, strdt par pedagogu brnu izgltbas iestds, atbilstbu Latvijas Republikas Satversmes 106.panta pirmajam teikumam. Šaj liet Satversmes tiesa ar 2019.gada 27.marta lmumu atteics ierosint lietu pc Senta pieteikuma. Satversmes tiesa lmum nordja, ka šobrd situciju regul divas vienda juridisk spk tiesbu normas, proti,
1 11 lietas departaments izskatja mutvrdu proces. Septias lietas (Nr. SK A-1/2019 (A420684911), Nr. SK A-201/2019 (A420387314), Nr. SK A-272/2019 (A420304114), Nr. SK A-382/2019 (A420159215), Nr. SK A-637/2019 (A420202416), Nr. SK A-791/2019 (A420165317), Nr. SKA-890/2019 (670014818)) departaments izskatja departamenta kopsd. Vien no kopsd izskattajm lietm (Nr. SKA-890/2019) tika izteiktas senatoru atsevišs domas.
2 Tekst nolmumu numuri, kuri ir rakstti treknrakst, ir publicti gadagrmat un pieejami ar Augstks tiesas mjaslap.
A-7
Anotcija
gan Brnu tiesbu aizsardzbas likuma 72.panta piekts daas 1.punkts, gan Izgltbas likuma 50.panta 1.punkts, kas pc Satversmes tiesas 2017.gada 24.novembra sprieduma liet Nr. 2017-07-01 pieemšanas ir izteikts jaun redakcij un neatkargi no noziedzga nodarjuma smaguma veida paredz individulu izvrtjumu, vai personas sodmba nekaits izgltojamo interesm. Ja tiek konstatta pretruna starp vienda juridiska spka tiesbu normm, piemro jaunko tiesbu normu, un Izgltbas likuma 50.panta 1.punkta jaun redakcija atspoguo jaunu likumdevja pieeju strdus situcijas risinšan, t.i., individulu personas, kura vlas strdt par pedagogu, tostarp ar brniem, izvrtjumu. Liet Nr. SKA-386/2019 (A420225116) tika iesniegts pieteikums par likuma “Par valsts socilo apdrošinšanu” 6.panta otrs daas (redakcij, kas bija spk no 1998.gada 1.janvra ldz 2002.gada 31.decembrim), ciktl t neparedz darba mju, kuriem noteikta I vai II grupas invaliditte, pakaušanu invalidittes apdrošinšanai, atbilstbu Latvijas Republikas Satversmes 91. un 109.pantam. Liet Nr. SKA-1481/2019 (A420271718) tika iesniegts pieteikums par Ministru kabineta noteikumu normu par vecuma pensijas minimlo apmru atbilstbu 1996.gada 3.maij prskatts Eiropas Socils hartas 12.panta 1.punktam un Latvijas Republikas Satversmes 109.pantam.
3. Lgums departamentu priekšsdtju sdei lietas pakautbas jautjuma izlemšanai.
Lieta Nr. SKA-1380/2019 (670007319) par procesulo krtbu, kd persona var vrsties ar prasjumu par Uzturldzeku garantiju fonda vias ieskat nepamatoti piedzto uzturldzeku piedzšanu, jo ir atzta par spk neesošu paternitte.3
4. Lmumi par prejudicil jautjuma uzdošanu Eiropas Savienbas Tiesai.
Lieta Nr. SKA-143/2019 (A420281216) par personas tiesbm saemt plnveida veselbas aprpes pakalpojumus cit Eiropas Savienbas dalbvalst, ja Latvij attiecg rstšans netiek piedvta bez asins prliešanas, kas ir pretja personas reliiskajai prliecbai. Jautjums par Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2004.gada 29.apra Regulas (EK) Nr. 883/2004 par socils nodrošinšanas sistmu koordinšanu un par Lguma par Eiropas Savienbas darbbu 56.panta un Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2011.gada 9.marta Direktvas Nr. 2011/24/ES par pacientu
3 Departamentu priekšsdtju sdes 2019.gada 28.novembra lmums, http://www.at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/departamentu-priekssedetaju-sezu-lemumi
A-8
Lieta Nr. SKA-220/2019 (A420380214) par vara/vara sakausjuma lietu klasifikciju. Jautjums par kombints nomenklatras, kas ietverta Eiropas Padomes 1987.gada 23.jlija Regulas (EEK) Nr. 2658/87 par tarifu un statistikas nomenklatru un kopjo muitas tarifu I pielikum, kas grozts ar Komisijas 2011.gada 27.septembra Regulu (ES) Nr. 1006/2011, interpretciju.
Lieta Nr. SKA-543/2019 (A420273216) par Itlijas pilsoa, kurš Latvij uzturas uz Eiropas Savienbas pilsoa reistrcijas apliecbas pamata, tiesbm saemt valsts nodrošintus veselbas aprpes pakalpojumus. Jautjums par Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2004.gada 29.apra Direktvas Nr. 2004/38/EK par Savienbas pilsou un viu imenes loceku tiesbm brvi prvietoties un uzturties dalbvalstu teritorij un Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2004.gada 29.apra Regulas (EK) Nr. 883/2004 normu interpretciju, k ar Latvijas reguljuma atbilstbu Lguma par Eiropas Savienbas darbbu 18. un 21.pantam (diskrimincijas aizliegums pilsonbas d, prvietošans brvba).
Lieta Nr. SKA-101/2019 (A420304815) par sankciju piemrošanu, ja nav izpildti bioloisks daudzveidbas uzturšanas zljos atbalstam pieteiktaj platb paušanas nosacjumi, nekonstatjot izmaias kultraugu grup. Jautjums par Komisijas 2011.gada 27.janvra Regul (ES) Nr. 65/2011 paredzto vairku sankciju piemrošanu par vienu prkpumu.
Lieta Nr. SKA-176/2019 (A43007716) par vienas atprkams akcijas cenas aprinšanas krtbu, izsakot obligto akciju atpirkšanas piedvjumu. Jautjums par Padomes 2004.gada 21.apra Direktvas Nr. 2004/25/ EK par premšanas piedvjumiem interpretciju un zaudjumu atldzinšanas pienkumu.
Lietas Nr. SKA-981/2019 (A420185217), Nr. SKA-987/2019 (A420187017), Nr. SKA-1006/2019 (A420186717), Nr. SKA-1074/2019 (A420187417) par patrtja kreditšanas lguma izmaksu samrgumu un atbilstbu godgai darjumu praksei. Jautjums par Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2008.gada 23.apra Direktvas Nr. 2008/48/EK par patria kredtlgumiem interpretciju (jdziena “kredta kopjs izmaksas patrtjam” saturs).
Anotcija
A-9
5. Administratv procesa tiesbu principi. Spriedum liet Nr. SKA79/2019 Sents skaidroja, ka principa in dubio pro civis (šaubas par labu cilvkam) piemrošana gadjum, kad tiek izdots privtpersonai nelabvlgs administratvais akts, nozm to, ka iestdei (lemjot par personai nelabvlga administratv akta izdošanu) un tiesai (veicot kontroli pr iestdes lmuma tiesiskumu) pamatotu šaubu gadjum ts jtulko par labu indivdam. Tomr vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka ar pamatotm šaubm š principa kontekst nav saprotamas jebkuras šaubas, bet gan tdas, kuras ir vrstas uz lietas izmeklšanai izširošiem apstkiem un kuras lietas izskatšanas gait nav iespjams novrst. Papildus Sents nordja, ka iestdei un tiesai ir pienkums lietu izskatt t, lai iespjams šaubas pc iespjas tiktu novrstas. Tas nozm, ka iestdei un tiesai šdos gadjumos btu juzemas lielka nasta lietas apstku noskaidrošan. 2019.gad Sents savos spriedumos aplkoja ar citus tiesbu principus, piemram, liet Nr. SKA148/2019 Sents skaidroja tiesiskuma principa saturu. K nordts konkrtaj spriedum, tiesbu virsvadbas princips (no kura ir atvasints tiesiskuma princips) prasa, lai iestdes rcba pc btbas atbilstu ne tikai raksttajm tiesbu normm, bet ar visprjiem tiesbu principiem. Ldz ar to tiesiskuma princips paredz tiesbu piemrotja pienkumu ne tikai izprast tiesbu sistmas un ts pamat esošos tiesbu principus un konstitucionl ranga vrtbas, bet ar piemrot tiesbu normas, noskaidrojot to jgu un mri. Vienlaikus Sents šaj spriedum uzsvra, ka tiesiskuma principa prasba, lai iestdes rcba atbilstu iestdes darbbu reguljošajm tiesbu normm, nenozm, ka iestde var formli piemrot tiesbu normas (piemram, Ministru kabineta noteikumus), neskatoties uz attiecgo normu jgu kontekst ar citm piemrojamm tiesbu normm. Liet Nr. SKA262/2019 Sents skaidroja divus tiesbu principus – tiesiskuma principu un likuma atrunas principu. Attiecb uz tiesiskuma principu Sents nordja uz jau spriedum liet Nr. SKA-148/2019 izteikto atziu, ka iestdes rcbai ir jatbilst tiesbu normm, vienlaikus uzsverot, ka tiesbu normas var bt gan raksttas, gan neraksttas (proti, tiesbu principi). Attstot šo atziu, Sents uzsvra – tas vien, ka iestdes rcbas pamats nav tieš tekst noteikts raksttajs tiesbu norms, nenozm, ka iestde ldz ar to var atturties no attiecg situcij nepieciešamas un adekvtas rcbas. Savukrt, skaidrojot likuma atrunas principa btbu, Sents akcentja, ka personai nelabvlga administratv akta izdošanas pamatam jizriet no tiesbu normm, kuras ir piemis kds no Latvij demokrtiski leitimtajiem likumdevjiem (proti, tauta vai tautas vltie prstvji).
A-10
Vienlaikus Sents šaj spriedum nordja, ka no abiem tiesbu principiem, proti, tiesiskuma un likuma atrunas principa, izrietoš prasba rkoties saska ar tiesbu normm nenozm, ka ir pieaujama tikai tdas iestdes rcba, kas tieš tekst ir noteikta raksttaj tiesbu norm. Tpc var bt t, ka konkrts situcijas noreguljums ir mekljams, aplkojot tiesbu instittu pc jgas un tiesbu normas savstarpj kopsakar.
6. Administratvais process ties. Liets Nr. SKA131/2019 un Nr. SKA274/2019 Sents analizja tiesas pienkumus attiecb uz sprieduma motvu daas veidošanas prasbm. Liet Nr. SKA-274/2019 uzsvrts, ka no tiesbm uz taisngu tiesu izriet pienkums tiesai nolmum nordt savu argumentciju t, lai citas personas (gan procesa dalbnieki, gan augstkas instances tiesa, gan interesanti no sabiedrbas) vartu saprast, k tiesa ir nonkusi pie konkrt izskatšanas rezultta (nevis cita rezultta). Tas nozm, ka tiesai sprieduma motvos ir nepieciešams atspoguot ts veikto pierdjumu analzi un ar to saisttos apsvrumus, kas ir pamats secinjumam par pieteikuma apmierinšanu vai noraidšanu. Liet Nr. SKA-131/2019 atgdints, ka nav pieaujami “prsteiguma” spriedumi. Proti, Administratv procesa likuma 247.panta treš daa nosaka, ka tiesa savu spriedumu drkst pamatot tikai ar tiem apstkiem, par kuriem procesa dalbniekiem ir bijusi iespja izteikt savu viedokli (mutvrdos vai rakstveid). Un, k nordja Sents, lai netiktu sastdts “prsteiguma” spriedums, tiesai ar lietas dalbniekiem ir jprrun liet nozmgie faktiskie un tiesiskie apstki. Tas attiecas ne tikai uz mutvrdu, bet ar uz rakstveida procesu. Liet Nr. SKA1271/2019 analizts jautjums par procesa dalbnieku tiesbu iepazties ar lietas materiliem ierobeošanas pieaujambu. emot vr, ka tiesai savs spriedums ir jpamato viengi ar tdiem apstkiem, par kuriem lietas dalbniekiem ir bijusi iespja izteikties, Sents atzina, ka šs tiesbas (iepazties ar lietas materiliem) ir iespjams samrgi ierobeot tikai izmuma gadjumos. Vienlaikus ir jem vr, ka šo tiesbu ierobeošana ir pieaujama viengi leitma mra lab un samrg apjom. Sents ar nordja, ka tiesai, lemjot par personas tiesbu ierobeošanu, jem vr, vai attiecgie pierdjumi, ar kuriem dalbnieks nevar iepazties, ir vrtjami k izširoši, proti, tdi, kas vartu ietekmt sprieduma rezulttu. Un vai gadjum, ja konkrtie pierdjumi ir uzskatmi par tdiem, kas ir btiski lietas izširšan, samrgs risinjums nebtu tiesvedbas apturšana uz laiku, kamr dalbniekam ir noteikts aizliegums iepazties ar konkrtajiem pierdjumiem. Liet Nr. SKA310/2019 aplkots jautjums par neapstrdt administratvaj akt izdarto apstku novrtjuma prskatšanu cit
Anotcija
A-11
administratvaj liet. Sents atzina – ja administratv akta adrests izvlas neapstrdt (un ldz ar to neprsdzt) sev nelabvlgo administratvo aktu, adrestam ir jrespekt ar konkrto administratvo aktu nodibint attiecb. Tomr tas nenozm, ka neapstrdt administratvaj akt izdarto apstku novrtjums ktu neprskatms, ja tas tiek izmantots, lai pamatotu citu administratvo aktu. Proti, ja šis cits konkrtais administratvais akts tiek prsdzts, tiesai ir jprbauda t pamatojums pc btbas un t nevar atsaukties uz to, ka cit administratvaj akt (kurš nav apstrdts) ir izdarts šds apstku novrtjums. Liet Nr. SKA453/2019 Sents analizja divus btiskus jautjumus, proti, pierdšanas pienkuma sadaljumu starp Veselbas inspekciju un fizisko personu strd par izmaksm no rstniecbas riska fonda un pierdšanas standartu closakarbas konstatšanai (liets par pacienta tiesbm uz atldzbu no rstniecbas riska fonda). Attiecb uz pierdšanas pienkuma sadaljumu nordts, ka tieši Veselbas inspekcijai, izdarot secinjumus par kaitjuma esbu, closakarbas pastvšanu vai kaitjuma apmru, ir pienkums sniegt pamatojumu šdam secinjumam (it paši, ja tas ir personai nelabvlgs), un tikai tad, ja Veselbas inspekcija ir piencgi pamatojusi savu secinjumu, tiesa var prast personai, lai t atspko šo secinjumu. Papildus Sents atzmja, ka tiesa nepieciešambas gadjum ir tiesga noteikt ekspertzi. Mintais Veselbas inspekcijas pienkums pamatot savu secinjumu saglabjas ar tad, ja tiesa inspekcijas viedokli par closakarbu noskaidro tikai tiesas procesa laik. Attiecb uz pierdšanas standartu closakarbas konstatšanai Sents nordja, ka liets par pacienta tiesbm uz atldzbu no rstniecbas riska fonda ir izmantojams standarts “iespjambas prsvars”. Sents atzina, ka ar šo pierdšanas standartu netiek prasts, lai tiktu izslgtas visas saprtgs šaubas par closakarbas esbu, bet ir jkonstat, ka iespja, ka pastv closakarba starp pacientam nodarto kaitjumu un rstniecbas iestdes rcbu, ir lielka nek iespja, ka tda nepastv. Liet Nr. SKA1/2019 Administratvo lietu departaments kopsd aplkoja jautjuma par prasjuma par civiltiesiska lguma vai ierakstu izmaim zemesgrmat un administratv akta atcelšanu/atzšanu par prettiesisku noširšanu. Spriedum nordts, ka gadjumos, kad administratvajam aktam sekojusi civiltiesiska darbba (piemram, lguma noslgšana vai pašuma tiesbu nostiprinšana zemesgrmat), katrs no šiem prasjumiem ir pakauts savai tiesai. Proti, prasjums par administratv akta atcelšanu vai atzšanu par prettiesisku k publiski tiesiskais ir pakauts izskatšanai administratv procesa krtb (ldz ar to attiecgi pakauts administratvajai tiesai), savukrt prasjums par civiltiesisko
A-12
darbbu k civiltiesisku prasjumu ir izskatms civilprocesul krtb (ldz ar to attiecgi pakauts visprjs jurisdikcijas tiesai). Vienlaikus šaj spriedum Sents skatja jautjumu par res judicata principu un iespjamo atkpšanos no t. K atzina Sents, tad res judicata princips ir uzskatms par fundamentlu un nozmgu, jo ar šo principu tiek ierobeota sprieduma prskatšanas iespjas neierobeot laik, tiek iedibinta tiesisk drošba, noteiktba un stabilitte. Tomr konkrtais princips nav pilngi absolts un pašos izmuma gadjumos citu nozmgu tiesbu aizsardzbai ir pieaujama atkpšans no š principa, piemram, ja tiesa, kuras spriedums ir stjies spk, ir pievusi fundamentlu kdu (piemram, prkpusi jurisdikciju). Liet Nr. SKA921/2019 Sents analizja jautjumu par to, kurai tiesai (Administratvajai rajona tiesai vai Administratvajai apgabaltiesai) ir piekritgs pieteikums par Konkurences padomes administratv akta izdošanas proces pieauta procesul prkpuma konstatšanu.4 Sents atzina, ka pieteikums par Konkurences likuma 8.panta pirmaj da mint administratv akta izdošanas proces pieautu procesul prkpuma konstatšanu ir piekritgs Administratvajai apgabaltiesai k pirms instances tiesai, neatkargi no t, vai pieteikumu ir iesniedzis Konkurences padomes ierosints administratvs lietas dalbnieks vai persona, kura nav attiecg procesa dalbnieks, vršoties ar pieteikumu par faktisko rcbu.
7. Atldzinjuma prasjumi. Liet Nr. SKA890/2019 Sents skatja jautjumu par pakautbas (kompetents tiesas) noteikšanu par mantisko zaudjumu un nemantisk kaitjuma atldzinšanu. Izskatot lietu kopsd, senatoru vairkums5 atzina, ka, emot vr atldzinjuma prasjuma (gan par mantisko, gan nemantisko kaitjumu) subsidiro raksturu, prasjum par atldzinjuma pieširšanu lmumu pieem t tiesa, kuras kompetenc ir bijis konstatt un novrst š lmuma prettiesiskumu. Liets Nr. SKA1409/2019, Nr. SKA1528/2019 un Nr. SKA131/2019 Sents vrtja jautjumu par tiesbm uz atldzinjumu. T, piemram, liet Nr. SKA-1409/2019 Sents atzina, ka tiesbas uz zaudjumu atldzinšanu sakar ar labvlga administratv akta atcelšanu ne vienmr ir atkargas no iestdes rcbas tiesiskuma, jo, atceot administratvo aktu saska ar Administratv procesa likuma 85.panta otrs daas 4.punktu, adrestam
4 Konkurences likuma 8.panta otr daa noteic, ka Konkurences padomes lmumus administratv procesa dalbnieks var prsdzt Administratvaj apgabalties, kura minto lietu izskata pirmaj instanc triju tiesnešu sastv.
5 Lmumam pievienotas piecu senatoru atsevišs domas.
Anotcija
A-13
ir tiesbas uz atldzinjumu ar tad, ja abi lmumi (gan labvlgais administratvais akts, gan lmums, ar kuru tiek atcelts labvlgais administratvais akts) ir bijuši tiesiski. Vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka šda atldzinjuma prasjuma pamats nav iestdes prettiesisks lmums/rcba, bet gan labvlga administratv akta atcelšana un šd situcij Valsts prvaldes iestu nodarto zaudjumu atldzinšanas likuma normas ir piemrojamas tikai pc analoijas, jo š likuma mris ir nodrošint atldzinjumu, kas nodarts ar prettiesisku administratvo aktu. Liet Nr. SKA-1528/2019 skatts jautjums par tiesbm uz atldzinjumu “paš upura” d. Konkrtaj liet Sents atzina, ka Latvijas Republikas Satversme, emot vr taisnguma apsvrumus, prasa apsvrt nepieciešambu atldzint zaudjumus par tiesbu ierobeojumu ar tdos gadjumos, kad valsts prvaldes rcba atbilst tiesbu normm un nav konstatjams rcbas prettiesiskums. Tiesas uzdevums ir vrtt, vai konkrtaj gadjum pastv tds personas tiesbu ierobeojums, kas tai, saldzinot ar citm personm, uzliek sevišu, rkrtju nastu vai liek paciest atširgu, sevišu, rkrtju kaitjumu, jo ne katrs personas tiesbu ierobeojums, kas radts ar tiesisku iestdes darbbu, ir jatldzina. Sents liet Nr. SKA-131/2019, analizjot jautjumu par personas tiesbm prast atldzint nkotn sagaidmos izdevumus par juridisko paldzbu, nordja, ka par jau clušos mantisko zaudjumu ir uzskatma ar saistbu apmra palielinšans. Ldz ar to par mantisko zaudjumu ir uzskatma ar rin par juridisko paldzbu nordt summa, lai ar rins nav samaksts.
8. Bvniecbas tiesbas. Liets Nr. SKA201/2019 un Nr. SKA262/2019 Sents aplkoja jautjumu par to, kura persona ir atbildga par patvagas bvniecbas novršanu. Liet Nr. SKA-262/2019 Sents kopsd atzina, ka par atbildgo personu par patvagas bvniecbas novršanu primri ir uzskatms pašnieks. Šds secinjums pamatots ar to, ka nekustam pašuma pašnieks ir persona, kuras ekskluzv var ir lemt par sava pašuma izmantošanu, uzturšanu un attiecgi ar apbvi. Ldzs šm tiesbm pastv ar pašnieka pienkums atbildt par pašuma izmantošanas (tostarp apbves) atbilstbu tiesbu normu prasbm. Savukrt departamenta kopsd liet Nr. SKA-201/2019 Sents analizja jautjumu par to, kura persona ir atbildga par patvagas bvniecbas novršanu koppašuma gadjum, ja patvago bvniecbu ir veicis viens no koppašniekiem. Sents atzina, ka šd gadjum pastv no Civillikuma 1068.panta un taisnguma principa izrietošs visprgs princips, ka par patvags bvniecbas novršanu ir atbildgs tas koppašnieks, kurš ir veicis šo bvniecbu. Vienlaikus Sents šaj spriedum (SKA-201/2019)
A-14
nordja, ka gadjum, ja persona ir iegdjusies koppašuma domjamo dau, kur ir veikta patvaga bvniecba, tad personai ir jrins ar to, ka nkotn viai bs attiecgais bvniecbas process jpabeidz. Liet Nr. SKA30/2019 Sents, vrtjot jautjumu par piekrišanu bvniecbai koppašnieka maias gadjum, uzsvra, ka koppašnieka piekrišanas došana bvniecbai ir koppašnieku civiltiesisks attiecbas, kur piekrišanas došana ir uzskatma par darjumu starp koppašniekiem. Šda piekrišana visprgi nav atsaucama, izemot, ja paši koppašnieki ir par šdu iespju vienojušies vai ir konstatjams gribas stuma trkums (piemram, maldbas d), k ar šda piekrišana nav ierobeota ar termiu. Vienlaikus uzsvrts, ka tdi apstki k koppašnieka maia vai tas, ka veikt bvniecba pilnb neatbilst obligtajiem noteikumiem, paši par sevi neizncina saemto un stenoto (vai ar stenot uzskto) piekrišanas spku, proti, koppašnieka piekrišana saglab savu spku. Spriedum papildus nordts, ka Senta ieskat vispiemrotkais brdis koppašnieka piekrišanas saemšanai ir bvniecbas ieceres ierosinšanas brdis. Šds secinjums pamatots ar dzv gtajiem novrojumiem, ka atsevišos gadjumos bvniecbas darbi koppašuma gadjumos vispr nav iespjami bez šdas piekrišanas. Liet Nr. SKA249/2019 vrtts jautjums par personas tiesbm administratv procesa krtb vrsties pret iespjamo patvags bvniecbas izmantošanu. Sents konkrtaj lmum uzsvra – ja personai ar trešs personas bvniecbu ir radies tiesbu aizskrums, tad, ievrojot ar otras iesaistts privtpersonas intereses, personai ir pienkums pret š aizskruma avotu vrsties pc iespjas sk laika posm pc t konstatšanas (vai kad šis aizskrums objektvi varja tikt konstatts).
9. Fizisko personu datu aizsardzba. Liet Nr. SKA6/2019 analizts jautjums par policijas darbinieku dienesta telps uzemta attla publiskošanas neierobeotam personu lokam pieaujambu sabiedrbas interess. Sents spriedum atzina, ka policijas darbinieku dienesta telps uzemta attla publiskošana ir pieaujama, ja tas ir nepieciešams sabiedrbas interešu nodrošinšanai (piemram, lai sabiedrba vartu sekot ldzi, vai policijas darbinieki nerkojas prettiesiski). Vienlaikus ir nordms, ka policijas darbiniekiem, pildot dienesta pienkumus, ir tiesbas uz personas datu, tai skait ar attla, aizsardzbu. Ldz ar to, lai samrotu abas šs tiesbas, Sents atzina – ja policijas darbinieku personas datu (piemram, attla) publicšana nav nepieciešama sabiedrbas interešu nodrošinšanai, personai, kas vlas publiskot informciju, kura skar policijas darbiniekus, ir pienkums anonimizt informciju t, lai nebtu iespjams identifict konkrtus policijas darbiniekus.
Anotcija
A-15
Liet Nr. SKA921/2019 Sents ne tikai pirmo reizi piemroja Visprgs datu aizsardzbas regulas6 normas, bet ar nordja uz vairkm btiskm atzim personas datu aizsardzbas jom. Šs atzias var iedalt divs grups. Pirmaj ir atzias par Datu valsts inspekcijas kompetences robem. Lmum teikts, ka fizisko personu datu aizsardzbas uzraudzba ir Datu valsts inspekcijas patstvg kompetenc paši nodota publisk funkcija, kuru t nedala ar citm valsts prvaldes iestdm. Vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka Datu valsts inspekcija, izdodot administratvos aktus un uzliekot tiesiskos pienkumus, neprskata citu iestu izdotos administratvos aktus vai faktisko rcbu apstrdšanas krtb (proti, tas joprojm ir augstkas iestdes kompetenc). Otraj grup ir iedalmas Senta atzias par datu subjekta tiesbm vrsties ties par iespjamiem personas datu apstrdes prkpumiem. Sents atzina, ka no Visprgs datu aizsardzbas regulas 79.panta 1.punkta izriet, ka datu subjektam ir divi alternatvi tiesbu aizsardzbas ldzeki – vršans ties ar pieteikumu vai vršans uzraudzbas iestd (Latvijas gadjum – Datu valsts inspekcij). Sents ar nordja, ka, lai personai (datu subjektam) btu tiesbas vrsties ties, pietiek ar to, ka persona uzskata, ka ir notikusi regulai neatbilstoša datu apstrde. Liet Nr. SKA148/2019 Sents, vrtjot jautjumu par Fizisks personas datu apstrdes likum noteikto pienkumu izpildi, atzina – lai secintu, vai konkrtu personas datu apstrde ir nepieciešama przinim likum noteikto pienkumu pildšanai, ir jprbauda, vai konkrt pienkuma izpilde nav iespjama bez attiecgo datu apstrdes. Lai noskaidrotu šo jautjumu, Sents nordja, ka primri jem vr mris, kura sasniegšanai likum ir paredzts konkrtais pienkums, jo tikai td veid ir iespjams noskaidrot, kdi dati un kd apjom ir nepieciešami pienkuma izpildei. 10. Tiesbas uz informciju un trauksmes clju aizsardzba. Liet Nr. SKA917/2019 analizts jautjums par urnlistu tiesbm saemt informciju par publisks prvaldes budeta ldzeku izlietojumu. Sents spriedum atzina, ka demokrtiskas valsts prvaldes funkcionšanas neatemama pazme ir ts prskatmba, tostarp ar iespja saemt informciju par publisko ldzeku izlietojumu, uzsverot, ka demokrtisk valst sabiedrbai ir jbt iespjm sekot ldzi tam, k publisk prvalde pilda savas funkcijas un k tiek izlietoti publiskie ldzeki, lai prliecintos, ka šie ldzeki tiek izlietoti sabiedrbas interešu nodrošinšanai un tie
6 Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2016.gada 27.apra Regula (ES) 2016/679 par fizisku personu aizsardzbu attiecb uz personas datu apstrdi un šdu datu brvu apriti un ar ko atce Direktvu 95/46/EK (Visprg datu aizsardzbas regula).
A-16
netiek izmantoti negodprtgi, piemram, ar publisko varu apvelttu personu savtgu interešu stenošanai. Vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka urnlistu darbba, stenojot vrda un preses brvbu, ir viena no demokrtiskas valsts pamatvrtbm, jo tieši ar ts paldzbu liel mr tiek nodrošintas sabiedrbas tiesbas saemt informciju par tai btiskiem jautjumiem, k ar iespja sekot ldzi tam, k valsts pilda savas funkcijas un k rkojas ar publiskajiem ldzekiem. Turklt urnlisti, saemot un analizjot informciju par budeta ldzeku izlietojumu un publisko funkciju izpildi, pilda savu demokrtijas “sargsua” funkciju. Papildus Sents nordja, ka iestdei ir japzins, ka sabiedrbai ir tiesbas zint (un ttad urnlistiem pamats ptt), vai publiskie ldzeki tiek izlietoti tiesiski un sabiedrbas interess. Ldz ar to, ja urnlisti iestdei prasa informciju par budeta ldzeku izlietojumu un norda, ka tas nepieciešams urnlistikas vajadzbm, iestdei ir pamats konstatt informcijas pieprastja leitmu interesi. Liet Nr. SKA879/2019 Sents vrtja jautjumu par Informcijas atkltbas likuma 11.2panta trešaj da noteiktm iestdes tiesbm atteikt izsniegt informciju vai t izpildes nosacjumu, pamatojoties uz to, ka informcijas pieprasjums ir atzstams par apgrtinošu (tdu, kas nav samrojams ar iestdes rcb esošajiem resursiem, proti, t nosacjumu izpildes rezultt ir apdraudts iestdes darbs vai citu personu tiesbas). K atzina Sents, tad apstrdjams informcijas apjomu (kuru var uzskatt par galveno iemeslu, lai informcijas pieprasjumu atztu par apgrtinošu) var ietekmt ne tikai laika periods, par kdu informcija ir pieprasta, bet ar citi faktori, piemram, vai informciju iespjams apkopot automtiski vai ar to var veikt tikai manuli un informcijas detalizcijas pakpe. Sents nordja, ka šdu novrtjumu var sniegt tikai iestde. Tpc, ja iestde ir izvirzjusi argumentu par informcijas pieprasjuma apgrtinošo raksturu, tad tieši iestdei ir pienkums iesniegt atbilstošus pierdjumus. Tiesai ir pienkums novrtt pieprasts informcijas sabiedrisk nozmguma samrojambu ar iestdes ieguldto darba apjomu, proti, jo lielks ir informcijas sabiedriskais nozmgums, jo lielku darba apjomu no iestdes var prast. Savukrt, k nordja Sents, informciju par sabiedrbas interesm (par pieprasto informciju un ts svargumu) tiesa var iegt, vrtjot personas mintos informcijas pieprasšanas mrus. Šaj jautjum skatt komentru par atzim liet Nr. SKA-476/2019. Liet Nr. SKA148/2019 Sents skatja jautjumu par informcijas izsniegšanu no Uzmuma reistra vestajiem reistriem. Spriedum nordts, ka Uzmumu reistra pienkums izsniegt informciju ir noteikts, lai tiktu nodrošinta tiesiskaj reguljum noteikto ziu publisk ticamba un pieejamba. Tomr šis Uzmuma reistra pienkums nav attiecinms
Anotcija
A-17
uz jebkuru informciju, kas ir nonkusi t rcb, bet gan tikai uz to, kas pc btbas ir nepieciešama Uzmuma reistra pamatfunkciju pildšanai.
Liet Nr. SKA232/2019 aplkots jautjums par ziotja par prkpumu aizsardzbu.7 Sents nordja, ka informciju, kas atklj ziotja identitti, drkst izsniegt tikai divos gadjumos – ar ziotja piekrišanu vai ja iestdei ir pienkums izpaust šo informciju saska ar likumu. Šaj spriedum papildus atzts, ka, lai izsvrtu, vai ziotjam par prkpumu ir nodrošinma aizsardzba, nepieciešams izvrtt kopsakar sešus apstkus,8 kas ir saistti ar konkrto ziojumu par prkpumu. Tomr Sents nordja, ka no mint ir iespjamas atkpes, ja prkpums, par kuru persona ir ziojusi, neskar sabiedrbas intereses un ir pamats uzskatt, ka ziotjs rkojies nelabticgi. Nolmum atzmts, ka personas, par kuru ir ziots, visprga atsaukšans uz vlmi vrsties ties civiltiesisk krtb pret ziotju nav uzskatma par pietiekamu, lai atkltu ziotja par prkpumu identitti.
Spriedum liet Nr. SKA255/2019 risints jautjums par atklt tiesas sd izskattas kriminllietas sprieduma pieejambu. K atzina Sents, tad atklt tiesas sd pieemts spriedums ir uzskatms par visprpieejamu informciju ar š sprieduma pasludinšanas brdi. Tomr uzsveramas vairkas btiskas piezmes. Pirmkrt, mint Senta atzia ir attiecinma uz atklt tiesas sd pieemtu spriedumu, ldz ar to t nav attiecinma uz spriedumiem, kuri ir pieemti liets, kas izskattas slgts sds. Otrkrt, ir iespjamas atkpes no š principa, ja nepieciešams aizsargt btiskas intereses, kurm konkrtos apstkos btu dodama priekšroka.
11. Nodoku tiesbas. Liet Nr. SKA382/2019 Sents kopsd precizja savu judikatru, kas bija izveidota 2015.gada 11.decembra spriedum liet Nr. SKA-119/2015 attiecb uz uzmuma ienkuma nodoka atlaides piemrošanu par ziedojumiem biedrbm. Sents spriedum uzsvra, ka likuma “Par uzmumu ienkuma nodokli” 20.1pants, kas liek un auj nodalt ziedojumu, par kuru paredzts pretpienkums, no
7 Trauksmes celšanas likums stjs spk 2019.gada 1.maij, ldz ar to, k nordja Sents, konkrtaj liet nebija pamata piemrot Trauksmes celšanas likuma normas, jo konkrtais likums vl nebija stjies spk.
8 Šie apstki ir: 1) vai personai bija pieejami citi ziošanas par iespjamo prkpumu risinjumi (instrumenti), proti, tdi, kas iespjamo prkpumu aktualiz diskrtk; 2) iesaistts sabiedrbai svargs intereses (proti, vai prkpums skar sabiedrbai btiskas intereses); 3) vai ziotjs rkojs lab ticb; 4) atklts informcijas patiesums; 5) ar informcijas atklšanu radtais kaitjums personai, par kuru tiek ziots; 6) trauksmes cljam radts negatvs sekas par trauksmes celšanu (ja tdas ir).
A-18
ziedojuma, kas veikts ar filantropisku mri, nav izprotams t, ka katr gadjum, kad pastv pretpienkums par ziedojumu, kopj nodot summa btu jdala das (proti, ziedojums da ar pretpienkumu, kam netiek piemrota uzmumu ienkuma nodoka atlaide, un ziedojums filantropiskaj da, kam tiek piemrota uzmumu ienkuma nodoka atlaide). Vienlaikus nordts, ka, ja ir pamats konstatt, ka pretpienkums ir saistts ar visu nodoto finanšu ldzeku apjomu, vai ar nav iespjams nodalt summu, kas ir nodota tikai un viengi ar filantropisku mri, tad šdi apstki uzskatmi par pamatu atzt, ka uzmuma nodotie finanšu ldzeki biedrbai vai iestdei vis apjom ir aptverti ar pretpienkumu un nav uzskatmi par ziedojumu nekd da. Liets Nr. SKA5/2019 un Nr. SKA631/2019 Sents aplkoja jautjumus par pievienots vrtbas nodokli. Spriedum liet Nr. SKA-5/2019, kas tika pieemts pc prejudicil jautjuma uzdošanas Eiropas Savienbas Tiesai9, apskatts jautjums par pievienots vrtbas nodoka priekšnodoka atskaitšanas tiesbu liegšanu un nodoka makstja pienkuma prbaudt darjuma partnerus robem. Ievrojot Eiropas Savienbas Tiesas spriedum nordto, Sents lma, ka no nodoku makstja papildu darjuma partnera prbaudes var prast tikai tad, ja konkrtajos darjuma apstkos nodoku makstjam btu vajadzjis rasties objektvm šaubm par savu darjuma partneri un ldz ar to btu pamatoti sagaidt, ka nodoku makstjs noskaidros nepieciešamo informciju, lai šaubas novrstu. Spriedum liet Nr. SKA-631/2019 Sents sniedza jdziena “uzmuma preja” interpretciju pievienots vrtbas nodoka kontekst. Sents nordja – lai atztu uzmuma prejas faktu un secintu, ka ir notikusi uzmuma (vai t patstvgas daas) nodošana, ir btiski konstatt, ka ieguvjam ir prgjis tds uzmuma elementu kopums (šis kopums ir atkargs no konkrt saimniecisks darbbas veida), kas ir pietiekams patstvgas un neatkargas saimniecisks darbbas veikšanai. Liet Nr. SKA152/2019 vrtts jautjums par lmuma iekaut personu riska personu sarakst pieemšanu. Valsts iemumu dienestam atbilstoši likuma “Par nodokiem un nodevm” 34.3panta pirmajai daai ir rcbas brvba, proti, Valsts iemumu dienestam, konstatjot kdu no likuma “Par nodokiem un nodevm” 1.panta 31.punkt esošo kritriju esbu, ir tiesbas pieemt lmumu par personas iekaušanu riska personu
9 Eiropas Savienbas Tiesas 2019.gada 3.oktobra spriedums liet “Altic”, C-329/18,ECLI:EU:C:2019:831.
Anotcija
A-19
sarakst (vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka Valsts iemumu dienestam nav pienkums šdu lmumu pieemt). Ttad, pieemot šdu lmumu, Valsts iemumu dienestam jizvrt t lietderba. Vienlaikus Sents šaj spriedum nordja, ka lmumam par riska personas statusa pieširšanu ir jbt vrstam uz negodgu komersantu efektvu atturšanu no uzmjdarbbas vides. Ldz ar to, apsverot šda lmuma pieemšanu, Valsts iemumu dienestam btu jnoskaidro, vai konstattie apstki liecina, ka šis mris ir apdraudts, un gadjum, ja mris ir apdraudts, cik btisks ir šis apdraudjums. 12. Citi. Administratvo lietu departamenta kopsd liet Nr. SKA1/2019 risinti vairki btiski jautjumi, k, piemram, jautjums par krasta kps vai pludmal esoša pašvaldbai piederoša nekustam pašuma atsavinšanas ierobeojumiem. Sents atzina, ka Aizsargjoslu likuma 36.panta trešs daas 1.punkt noteiktais publiski tiesiskais aizliegums regul valsts un pašvaldbas zemes, kas atrodas krastu kpu aizsargjosl un pludmal, atsavinšanu, ldz ar to, lemjot par pašuma atsavinšanu šd teritorij, pašvaldba rkojas publisko tiesbu jom, nevis k jebkurš pašnieks privttiesiskajs attiecbs. Tpat Sents konkrtaj spriedum uzsvra, ka koppašuma, kas atrodas krasta kps vai pludmal, izbeigšan ir jem vr Civillikuma 1075.pant noteiktie visprgie nosacjumi, koppašuma dalšanas nosacjumi, k ar specilajs tiesbu norms noteiktie ierobeojumi. Šaj spriedum analiztas ar personu subjektvs tiesbas iesniegt pieteikumu vides aizsardzbas jautjum. Sents nordja, ka valsts vai pašvaldbas nekustam pašuma, kas atrodas krasta kpu aizsargjosl vai pludmal, atsavinšanas jautjums ir btisks sabiedrbas interešu jautjums vides jom. Ttad tas ir kritrijs šda pieteikuma pieaujambai vides aizsardzbas nolk, proti, tas atbilst prasbai “vides tiesbu aizskrums vai apdraudjums ir sts, nozmgs un nopietns”. Liet Nr. SKA235/2019 btisks bija jautjums, kad personai rodas tiesbas priekšlaicgi pieprast vecuma pensiju. Sents atzina, ka par atskaites punktu izmantojams nevis visprjais pensionšans vecums laik, kad pensija tiek pieprasta priekšlaicgi, bet gan brdis, kad konkrt persona, kura vlas pensionties, sasniegs pensijas pieširšanai nepieciešamo vecumu, un tikai pc tam, kad atbilstoši tiesbu normm noteikts konkrts personas pensionšans vecums, no t ir atskaitmi divi gadi priekšlaicgai vecuma pensijas pieširšanai. Liet Nr. SKA742/2019 analizts jautjums par izlozes rkošanas iepirkuma lguma sldzja noteikšanai pieaujambu, k ar aktualiztas šdai izlozei izvirzms prasbas. Sents atzmja, ka Publisko iepirkuma
A-20
likuma 51.panta septt daa piešir pasttjam rcbas brvbu situcij, ja ir iesniegti vairk nek viens viendi novrtjami piedvjumi. Vienlaikus Sents uzsvra, ka izloze, lai noteiktu, ar kuru no pretendentiem šd situcij sldzams lgums, ir pieaujams instruments, jo tas ir tradicionli godgs izvles veids, kas auj nejaušbai izširt, kuram no piedvjumiem dot priekšroku. Tpat Sents nordja, ka, lai nodrošintu izlozes objektivitti un pilngu nejaušbas principa ievrošanu, k ar pretendentu šaubu novršanu, pasttjam btu jnodrošina iespja pretendentiem bt klt izloz, lai prliecintos par izlozes objektivitti un nejaušbu. Tomr vienlaikus tika atzts, ka izlozes ticambu var nodrošint ar proces neieinterestu personu kltbtne, kuras td gadjum vartu apliecint nejaušbas principa ievrošanu. Liet Nr. SKA794/2019 analizti divi jautjumi saistb ar darbinieka attaisnotas prombtnes (piemram, darbnespja vai atvainjums) ietekmi uz virsstundm. Attiecb uz darbinieka attaisnots prombtnes ietekmi uz virsstundu aprinšanu summt darba laika gadjum Sents nordja, ka ar “prskata periodu” darbnespjas gadjum ir jsaprot faktiskais nostrdtais laika periods prskata perioda ietvaros (proti, skotnj perioda un darbnespjas laika starpba). Tomr Sents ar uzsvra, ka šda prskata perioda samazinšans neskar likum noteikto darba devja pienkumu ievrot norml darba laika un atptas atlikušaj prskata period (vidji), kad darbinieks faktiski veic darbu, nodrošinšanu, kas var radt virsstundas, kuras darba devjam ir jkompens. Vienlaikus šaj spriedum Sents nordja, ka darbinieka attaisnot prombtne var bt par pamatu atširgam virsstundu skaitam. Tas, ka vairkm personm, kurm ir bijis noteikts ldzgs summt darba laika grafiks, atkarb no atrašans attaisnot prombtn vai darb virsstundu darbs var veidoties, skot no dadu kopum nostrdto stundu skaita, neprkpj vienldzbas principu, jo šdas personas (ja tm ir atširgi faktiski nostrdtais darba laiks un intensitte) neatrodas saldzinmos apstkos.
Administratvo lietu departamenta priekšsdtja
Mg.iur. Kaspars Kukmilks
A-21
Summary of the Section of the Rulings by the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia 2019
1. In 2019, 15 years have passed since the establishment of administrative courts. As noted at the anniversary conference, administrative courts have made a significant contribution to the development of Latvia as a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This year, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate adopted a total of 9511 rulings (697 in cassation proceedings, 251 regarding ancillary complaints, and three applications for re-examination of a case due to newly disclosed circumstances were considered). 171 rulings have been added to the case law archives on the website of the Supreme Court. 28 rulings have been selected for publication in this Collection. 2
The summary considers not only the rulings published in the yearbook, but also provides brief information on cases where the Department has submitted applications to the Constitutional Court, on cases where the Department has made a decision to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, and on a case where the Department has submitted a request to be considered by the meeting of heads of the departments of the Supreme Court.
2. Applications to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia.
In the case No SKA-134/2019 (A420297115), an application was submitted regarding the compliance of Section 72, Paragraph five, Clause 1 of the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights, insofar as it establishes an absolute prohibition for a person, convicted of criminal offences related to violence or threat of violence, to work as a teacher in children educational establishments, with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme
1 11 cases were heard in oral proceedings by the Department. Seven cases (No SKA-1/2019 (A420684911), No SKA-201/2019 (A420387314), No SKA-272/2019 (A420304114), No SKA-382/2019 (A420159215), No SKA-637/2019 (A420202416), No SKA-791/2019 (A420165317), No SKA-890/2019 (670014818)) were considered at the joint sitting of the Department. In one of the cases considered at the joint sitting (No SKA-890/2019), the separate opinions of the senators were expressed.
2 In the text, rulings whose numbers are written in bold, are published in the yearbook and are also available on the website of the Supreme Court.
A-22
(Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia. In this case, the Constitutional Court by the decision of March 27, 2019 refused to initiate proceedings upon the application of the Senate. The Constitutional Court indicated in the decision that currently the situation is regulated by two legal provisions of equal legal force, namely, by Section 72, Paragraph five, Clause 1 of the Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights and Section 50, Paragraph 1 of the Education Law, which following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of November 24, 2017 in the case No 2017-07-01 has been reworded and, regardless of gravity of a crime, provide for an individual assessment of whether a person’s criminal record could harm the interests of educatees. If a conflict between legal provisions of equal legal force is established, the latest legal provision shall be applied, and the new wording of Section 50, Paragraph 1 of the Education Law reflects a new approach of the legislator in resolving disputes, i.e., an individual evaluation of a person wishing to work as a teacher, including with children. In the case No SKA-386/2019 (A420225116), an application was submitted regarding the compliance of Section 6, Paragraph two (in the wording in force from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”, insofar as it does not provide for employees who have been assigned a Group I or II disability to disability insurance, with Articles 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia. In the case No SKA-1481/2019 (A420271718), an application was submitted regarding the compliance of the regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers on the minimum amount of retirement pension with Article 12 (1) of the revised European Social Charter of May 3, 1996 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. Request to the meeting of the heads of departments to decide on the issue of jurisdiction of the case.
The case No SKA-1380/2019 (670007319) on the procedural arrangements under which a person may file a claim for the recovery of maintenance unduly recovered by Maintenance Guarantee Fund in the opinion of a person, as the paternity has been declared invalid.3
4. Decisions to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
The case No SKA-143/2019 (A420281216) refers to the right of a person to receive planned health care services in another Member State of the
3 Decision of the meeting of heads of departments of November 28, 2019, http://www.at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/departamentu-priekssedetaju-sezu-lemumi
Summary
A-23
European Union, if the respective treatment is not offered in Latvia without a blood transfusion, which is contrary to the person’s religious beliefs. The question referred pertained to Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and to Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare in conjunction with Articles 10 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom of religion and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religious beliefs, and freedom to provide services). The case No SKA-220/2019 (A420380214) concerns the classification of copper/copper alloy ingots. The question addressed regards the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, Annex I, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011. The case No SKA-543/2019 (A420273216) pertains to the right of an Italian citizen residing in Latvia on the basis of a European Union citizenship registration certificate to receive state-provided health care services. The question referred regards the interpretation of provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States and of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, as well as the compliance of the Latvian regulation with Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of citizenship, freedom of movement). The case No SKA-101/2019 (A420304815) refers to the application of sanctions if the conditions for mowing in the area applied for support for the maintenance of biological diversity in grasslands are not met, without detecting changes in the crop group. The issue referred pertains to application of several sanctions for a single infringement provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011. The case No SKA-176/2019 (A43007716) concerns the procedure for calculating the price of one redeemable share, expressing the mandatory share repurchase offer. The question referred regards the interpretation of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids and the obligation to compensate for damages.
A-24
Cases No SKA-981/2019 (A420185217), No SKA-987/2019 (A420187017), No SKA-1006/2019 (A420186717), and No SKA-1074/2019 (A420187417) refer to the proportionality of the costs of a consumer credit agreement and compliance with fair business practices. The question referred pertains to interpretation of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers (content of the concept of “total cost of credit to the consumer”). 5. Principles of Administrative Procedure Law. In the judgment in the case No SKA79/2019, the Senate explained that applying the principle of in dubio pro civis (doubts in favour of a person) in the event of issuing an unfavourable administrative act to an individual means that the institution (deciding to issue an unfavourable administrative act to an individual) and the court (exercising control over the lawfulness of the institution’s decision) must interpret a reasonable doubt in favour of the individual. At the same time, however, the Senate emphasized that a reasonable doubt in the context of this principle do not include just any doubts but only those directed at the circumstances crucial to examination of the case and which cannot be eliminated in the course of the proceedings. Moreover, the Senate pointed out that the institution and the court have a duty to examine the case in such a way as to eliminate any doubts, which implies that the institution and the court should bear a greater burden in clarifying the circumstances of the case. In 2019, the Senate also addressed other legal principles in its judgments, for example, the case No SKA148/2019 clarifies the content of the principle of the rule of law. As stated in this judgment, the principle of supremacy of law (from which the principle of the rule of law is derived) requires that the conduct of an institution must, in essence, comply not only with written legal provisions but also with general principles of law. Consequently, the principle of the rule of law imposes an obligation on the person applying the law not only to understand the legal system and its underlying legal principles and values of constitutional rank, but also to apply legal provisions by clarifying their meaning and purpose. At the same time, the Senate emphasized in this judgment that the requirement of the principle of the rule of law for an institution to comply with the legal provisions governing its operation does not mean that the institution can formally apply legal provisions (e.g. regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers) without regard to meaning of the relevant provisions in the context of other applicable legal provisions. Whereas, in the case No SKA262/2019, the Senate clarified two principles of law, namely, the principle of the rule of law and the principle of lawful basis. As regards the principle of the rule of law, the Senate had
Summary
A-25
already pointed out a finding expressed in the judgement in the case No SKA-148/2019 that the conduct of an institution must comply with legal provisions, while emphasizing that legal provisions can be written and unwritten (i.e., legal principles). In developing this finding, it is pointed out that the mere fact that the basis of an institution’s conduct is not expressly stated in the written legal provisions does not mean that the institution may thus refrain from taking necessary and appropriate action in a particular situation. While explaining the essence of the principle of lawful basis, the Senate emphasized that the basis for issuing an unfavourable administrative act to an individual must be derived from legal provisions adopted by one of the democratically legitimized legislators in Latvia (namely, the people or elected representatives of the people). At the same time, in the present judgment the Senate emphasized that the requirement deriving from both legal principles, namely from the principle of the rule of law and the principle of lawful basis, to act in accordance with legal provisions does not mean that only such conduct by the institution is permitted which is expressly stipulated in the written legal provision. Therefore, it may happen that the resolution of a specific situation is to be found by looking at the meaning of the institution of law and at legal provisions in their interrelated sense.
6. Administrative proceedings in court. In the cases No SKA131/2019 and No SKA274/2019, the Senate analysed the obligation of a court regarding the requirements for drawing up a reasoning part of the judgement. In the case No SKA-274/2019 it is emphasized that the right to a fair trial imposes an obligation on the court to state its reasoning in the ruling so that other persons (both parties to the proceedings, the higher court and persons interested) can understand how the court has arrived to a specific result (and not to another result), which means that the court must include in the reasoning of its judgment the analysis of the evidence and the considerations which have led to the conclusion that the application should be satisfied or rejected. Whereas, in the case No SKA-131/2019 it is reminded that “surprise” judgments are inadmissible. Namely, Section 247, Paragraph three of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that the court may base its judgment only on such facts as the participants to the administrative proceedings have had an opportunity to express their views orally or in writing in regard to. And, as the Senate pointed out, in order not to produce a “surprise” judgment, the court must discuss with the parties the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case. This applies not only to the oral proceedings, but also to the written procedure.
A-26
Whereas, in the case No SKA1271/2019, the Senate analysed the issue of the admissibility of the restriction of the right of a party to familiarize with the case file. Taking into account that the court has to base its judgment only on the circumstances which the parties have had the opportunity to comment, the Senate acknowledged that this right (i.e., access to the case file) can be proportionally restricted only in exceptional cases. At the same time, however, it must be taken into account that the restriction of that right must be permitted only to the extent that it has a legitimate aim and is proportionate. Moreover, the Senate pointed out that the court, when deciding on the restriction of person’s rights, should consider whether the relevant evidence, which the party have no access to, should be assessed as decisive, namely, such that could influence the result of the judgment. And, if the evidence in question is considered to be relevant to the resolution of the case, it would not be proportionate to suspend the proceedings while the party is prohibited from accessing the evidence in question. The case No SKA310/2019 addresses the issue of reviewing the assessment of the circumstances of the uncontested administrative act in another administrative case. As the Senate acknowledged, if the addressee of an administrative act chooses not to contest (and hence not to appeal) an administrative act unfavourable to him or her, the addressee must respect the relationship established by the particular administrative act. However, this does not mean that such an assessment of the circumstances of an uncontested administrative act would be rendered non-transparent when used to justify another administrative act. Namely, if this other specific administrative act is the subject of an appeal, the court has to examine its justification on the merits and cannot rely on the fact that such an assessment of the circumstances has been made regarding another (non- contested) administrative act. In the case No SKA453/2019 the Senate analysed two key issues, namely the distribution of the burden of proof between the person and Health Inspectorate in the dispute regarding compensation from the Medical Treatment Risk Fund and the standard of proof in determining causation (in cases of patient’s right to compensation from Medical Treatment Risk Fund). As regards the distribution of the burden of proof, it is the responsibility of the Health Inspectorate when making its findings on the existence, causation or extent of the damage to provide a justification for such findings (especially, if it is unfavourable to a person), and only if the Health Inspectorate has substantiated its findings, the court may require the person to refute these findings. Furthermore, the Senate noted that the court is entitled to impose inspection if necessary. The above obligation of Health Inspectorate to substantiate its findings also applies if the court establishes
Summary
A-27
the Inspectorate’s opinion on causation only during the court proceedings. Concerning the standard of proof for establishing a causation, the Senate noted that in cases regarding patient’s right to compensation from Medical Treatment Risk Fund, the “predominance of probability” standard should be applied. And, as the Senate pointed out, this standard of proof does not require that any reasonable doubt as to the existence of a causation be eliminated, but it must be established that the possibility that causation exists between the damage caused to patient and the conduct of the medical institution is greater than the possibility that it does not exist. In the case No SKA1/2019 the Senate analysed the issue of separation of a claim regarding changes to a civil law contract or records in the Land Register and the revocation/recognition of unlawfulness of an administrative act. The judgment states that in cases where the administrative act is followed by a civil action (for example, conclusion of a contract or registration of property rights in the Land Register), each of these claims is subject to its own court. In particular, a claim for revocation/recognition of an administrative act as unlawful is subject to review under administrative procedure (and accordingly subject to an administrative court), whereas a claim for civil action as a civil claim is subject to review under civil procedure (and accordingly subject to a court of general jurisdiction). At the same time, in this judgment, the Senate examined the issue of the principle of res judicata and possible derogation from that principle. As recognized by the Senate, the principle of res judictata is fundamental and significant because it limits the possibility of reviewing the judgment indefinitely, and establishes legal security, certainty and stability. However, the principle in question is not entirely absolute and, in exceptional cases, it is permissible to derogate from this principle for the protection of other important rights, for example, where the court whose judgment has entered into force has committed a fundamental error (e.g. breach of jurisdiction). In the case No SKA921/2019 the Senate analysed the issue of which court (Administrative District Court or Administrative Regional Court) has jurisdiction over an application for determining a procedural violation in the process of issuing an administrative act of the Competition Council.4 As acknowledged by the Senate, an application for determining a procedural violation in the process of issuing an administrative act
4 Section 8, Paragraph two of the Competition Law stipulates that a participant in the administrative proceedings may appeal against the decisions of the Competition Council to the Administrative Regional Court, which hears the said case as the first instance by the judicial panel consisting of three judges.
A-28
referred to in Section 8, Paragraph one of the Competition Law is subject to Administrative Regional Court as a court of first instance, regardless of whether the application has been submitted by a participant in administrative proceedings initiated by the Competition Council or by a person who is not a participant in the relevant proceedings, when submitting an application regarding an actual action. 7. Compensation claims. In the case No SKA890/2019 the Senate analysed the issue of determining jurisdiction (competent court) for reviewing the compensation claim for material and non-material damage. Having examined the case in a joint sitting, a majority of senators5 acknowledged that, given the subsidiary nature of the compensation claim (both for material and non-material damage), the court which has had jurisdiction to establish and remedy the unlawfulness of that decision shall have jurisdiction over the compensation claim. Whereas, in cases No SKA1409/2019, No SKA1528/2019 and No SKA 131/2019, the Senate addressed the issue on the right of compensation. Thus, for example, in the case No SKA-1409/2019 the Senate, when assessing the issue of the right of compensation in the case of annulment of a favourable administrative act, acknowledged that the right of compensation in the case of annulment of a favourable administrative act does not always depend on the lawfulness of the institution’s action, because upon annulment of an administrative act in accordance with Section 85, Paragraph two, Clause 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law the addressee is entitled to compensation even if both decisions (both the favourable administrative act and the decision annulling the favourable administrative act) have been lawful. At the same time, the Senate emphasized that such a claim for compensation is not based on an unlawful decision/action of the institution but on the annulment of a favourable administrative act and in such a situation the provisions of the Law on Compensation for Damages Caused by State Administration are applicable only by analogy, because the purpose of this law is to ensure compensation caused by an unlawful administrative act. The case No SKA-1528/2019 addresses the issue of the right to compensation due to a “special victim”. In the present case, the Senate acknowledged that the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, taking into account the considerations of fairness, imposes to consider the necessity to compensate losses for restriction of rights also in cases when state administration authority’s action complies with legal provisions and
5 The separate opinions of five senators are attached to the decision.
Summary
A-29
unlawfulness of action cannot be established. It is for the court to assess whether, in a particular case, there exists a restriction on a person’s rights which imposes on him or her, in comparison to other persons, a special, extraordinary burden or causes him or her to suffer different, special, extraordinary damage, since not every restriction of a person’s rights, incurred by a lawful action of an authority, must be compensated. In the case No SKA-131/2019 the Senate, having analyzed the issue of a person’s right to claim compensation of future costs for legal aid, indicated that the increase in the extent of obligations is also considered to be the material damage incurred, therefore, the material damage is also considered to be the amount indicated in the invoice for legal aid even though the invoice is not yet paid.
8. Construction law. In cases No SKA201/2019 and No SKA262/2019, the Senate analyzed the issue of responsible person for the prevention of arbitrary construction in joint ownership. In the case No SKA-262/2019 the Senate acknowledged that the owner is primarily the person responsible for the prevention of arbitrary construction. This conclusion is based on the fact that the owner of immovable property is a person who has the exclusive power to decide on the use, maintenance and, accordingly, construction of his or her property. In addition to these rights, there is also an obligation of the owner to be responsible for the compliance of the use of the property (including construction) with the requirements of legal provisions. Whereas, in the case No SKA-201/2019 the Senate analyzed the issue of which person is responsible for the prevention of arbitrary construction in the case of joint ownership, if the arbitrary construction has been performed by one co-owner of joint ownership. As recognized by the Senate, in such a case there is a general principle arising from Section 1068 of the Civil Law and from the principle of fairness that the co-owner who has performed this construction is responsible for the prevention of arbitrary construction. At the same time, the Senate in this judgment (SKA-201/2019) indicated that if a person has acquired the undivided share of the joint ownership in which arbitrary construction has taken place, then the person must take into account that in the future he or she will have to complete the relevant construction process. In the case No SKA30/2019 the Senate, having assessed the issue of consent for construction in case of change of a co-owner, indicates that giving consent of a co-owner to construction is a civil legal relationship of co-owners, where giving consent is considered a transaction between co-owners. Such consent is generally not revocable, unless the co-owners themselves have agreed to such an option or there is a lack of authenticity of intent (for example, due
A-30
to mistake) and such consent is not limited in time. At the same time, it is emphasized that circumstances such as the change of a co-owner or the fact that the construction carried out does not fully comply with mandatory provisions do not in themselves destroy the consent received and implemented (or initiated), namely, the co-owner’s consent remains valid. The judgment additionally states that, in the opinion of the Senate, the most appropriate moment for obtaining the consent of the co-owner is the moment of initiating the construction plan. This conclusion is based on observations made in real life that in certain cases construction works in case of joint ownership are not possible at all without such consent. In the case No SKA249/2019 the Senate assessed the issue of use of the right of the person to take action against probably arbitrary construction in accordance with the administrative procedure. As the Senate emphasized in the particular decision, if person’s rights are infringed by the construction done by a third party, then, taking into account the interests of the other private person involved, the person is obliged to address the source of the infringement as soon as possible after it is established (or when the infringement could have been objectively established).
9. Protection of personal data of natural persons. In the case No SKA6/2019, the issue of the admissibility of publishing an image taken in the premises of police officers to an unlimited range of persons in the public interest has been analyzed. In this judgment, the Senate acknowledged that the publishing of an image taken in the premises of police officers is admissible if it is necessary in the public interest (for example, so that the public can monitor whether police officers are not acting unlawfully). At the same time, it should be noted that police officers have the right to the protection of personal data, including images, in the performance of their duties. Thus, in order to balance both of these rights, the Senate pointed out that if the publication of personal data (such as an image) of police officers is not necessary to observe public interest, a person wishing to publish information affecting police officers is obliged to anonymize the information so that it may not be possible to identify specific police officers. In the case No SKA921/2019 the Senate not only applied the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation6 for the first time, and also pointed out several important findings in the field of personal data protection. These findings can be divided into two groups. The first group contains
6 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
Summary
A-31
findings on the limits of competence of the Data State Inspectorate. The decision states that the supervision of personal data protection is a public function specifically transferred under the independent competence of the Data State Inspectorate, which it does not share with other state administration institutions. At the same time, the Senate emphasized that the Data State Inspectorate, when issuing administrative acts and imposing legal obligations, does not review administrative acts issued by other institutions or actual actions thereof under the contestation procedure (i.e. it is still within the competence of a higher institution). The second group includes the findings of the Senate regarding the data subject’s right to apply to a court for possible violations of personal data processing. The Senate acknowledged that it follows from Article 79 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation that a data subject has two alternative judicial remedies, namely, to submit an application to a court or to address a supervisory authority (in the case of Latvia – to address the Data State Inspectorate). The Senate also pointed out that in order for a person (data subject) to have the right to apply to a court, it is sufficient that the person considers that data processing that has not complied with the Regulation has taken place. In the case No SKA148/2019, having assessed the issue of fulfilment of duties specified in the Personal Data Processing Law, the Senate acknowledged that in order to conclude whether the processing of specific personal data is necessary for the controller to fulfil the duties specified in the law, it is necessary to check whether the fulfilment of specific duties is not possible without processing the relevant data. In order to clarify this issue, the Senate indicated that primaril

gg ald 2019 1 - at.gov.lv

Documents