GG ALD 2019 1 - AT.GOV.LV
-
Upload
others
-
View
2
-
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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).
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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)
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
(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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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
Latvijas Republikas Senta Administratvo lietu departamenta
spriedumi un lmumi
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