Latvia / Supreme Court, Department of Administrative Cases / ECLI:LV:AT:2024:1212.A420203718.16.L

Private individual v Ministry of Transport
Policy area
Education, training, youth, sport
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court, Department of Administrative Cases
Type
Decision
Decision date
12/12/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:LV:AT:2024:1212.A420203718.16.L
  • Latvia / Supreme Court, Department of Administrative Cases / ECLI:LV:AT:2024:1212.A420203718.16.L

    Key facts of the case: 

    The applicant applied to the Civil Aviation Agency for a private pilot licence. The private pilot licence is obtained through a series of consecutive stages, including a practical skills test. The Civil Aviation Agency found that the training flights had not taken place as reflected in the flight book. In view of this, the Agency not only cancelled the results of the skills test, but also banned the pilot from retaking the test and from obtaining a private pilot licence for one year. The applicant considered that the Agency was not entitled to impose such a prohibition and therefore brought an action before the administrative Court.

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    This decision relates to the referral by the Supreme Court of a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Supreme Court raised doubts as to the interpretation of the EU law since procedure for issuing the private pilot licence is provided in Regulation 1178/2011. The Supreme Court found that neither Regulation 1178/2011 nor other regulations applicable to this area specifies the consequences for the applicant if, when taking the skill test, they provide false information to the examiner about the training and flight experience they have received, i.e. fraudulently seek to obtain a private pilot licence.

    The Supreme Court questioned whether rights provided in ARA.GEN. 355 (e) of Regulation 1178/2011 for the competent authority to take any enforcement measures necessary to prevent the continuation of non-compliance with the requirements shall be interpreted as rights to impose a fixed-term ban on re-testing for and obtaining a private pilot licence. Further, the Supreme Court questioned whether such rights may be directly derived from this provision of the regulation or by analogy from ARA.FCL. 300 (f) which provides such rights in case of theoretical knowledge examination, when no regulation is provided in national law. The Supreme Court also called into question whether such interpretation would be consistent with the principle of legal certainty and Article 52 (1) of the Charter according to which such restriction on freedom to choose an occupation (Article 15 of the Charter) shall be provided for by law.

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Supreme Court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling regarding key legal questions raised in this case. One of the referred questions is directly related to the Charter. The Supreme Court referred the question whether it is compatible with Article 52 (1) of the Charter to interpret ARA.FCL. 300 (f) of Regulation 1178/2011 in such a way that the fixed-term prohibition of theoretical knowledge tests provided therein may be extended to skill tests. At the moment, the Supreme Court awaits for the preliminary ruling.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    11. At the same time, Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law.
    The present case concerns freedom to choose an occupation and freedom to conduct business, which he wishes to exercise by obtaining a private pilot's licence in order to be able to air transport of persons. That freedom is protected by Article 15(1) and (2) of the Charter.


    The restriction on the right of a person under Article 52 of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty, in the present case imposed on the applicant the applicant - the prohibition to retake the skills test for a certain period of time - should derive directly from a specific provision of Regulation No 216/2008 or Regulation No 1178/2011. As mentioned above, the provisions of those Regulations relating to the skill test, unlike the procedure for the theoretical knowledge test (ARA.FCL.300(f)) do not explicitly provide for the competent authority to refuse to allow an examination for at least one year if, during the examination.
    This has led the Administrative Regional Court to conclude that in the present case the restriction of the applicant's rights and freedoms is not provide for by law, but applied by analogy and therefore does not comply with the principle of lawful basis.
    The Supreme Court similarly finds a problem with the determination of the restriction on the applicant's rights and freedoms by analogy, which prima facie would be incompatible with Article 52(1) of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty.

    12. (...)
    In this context, it is appropriate to question the interpretation of ARA.GEN.355 (f) of Regulation No 1178/2011, where the national legislation does not provide for a specific, time-limited prohibition to take a skills test for a private pilot's licence. In particular, whether such a restriction, while respecting Article 51(1) of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty, may be derived directly from a provision of that regulation or, by analogy, from ARA.FCL.300 (f) of Regulation No 1178/2011. It is also not clear from the framework of Regulation No 1178/2011 why a time-limited prohibition to retake the test is provided only in the case of evidence of unfair conduct of the applicant in the theoretical knowledge test, but the same is not provided for in the case of evidence of unfair conduct of the applicant in the skills test.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    11. Tajā pašā laikā Hartas 52.panta 1.punkts noteic, ka tiesību un brīvību izmantošanas ierobežojumiem jābūt noteiktiem tiesību aktos.
    Izskatāmajā lietā skarta personas nodarbošanās un uzņēmējdarbības brīvība, ko tā vēlas īstenot, iegūstot privātpilota apliecību, lai varētu veikt
    personu aviopārvadājumus. Šo brīvību aizsargā Hartas 15.panta 1. un 2.punkts.
    Personas tiesību ierobežojumam atbilstoši Hartas 52.pantam un tiesiskās drošības principam, izskatāmajā gadījumā – pieteicējam noteiktajam
    aizliegumam noteiktu laiku (termiņu) atkārtoti kārtot prasmju pārbaudi –, būtu tieši jāizriet no regulas Nr. 216/2008 vai regulas Nr. 1178/2011 konkrētas normas. Kā minēts iepriekš, minēto regulu normas attiecībā uz prasmju pārbaudi atšķirībā no teorētisko zināšanu pārbaudes procedūras
    (ARA.FCL.300.punkta „f” apakšpunkts) tiešā tekstā neparedz kompetentās iestādes tiesības neļaut kārtot eksāmenu vismaz gadu, ja eksāmena laikā
    iegūti pretendenta negodīgas rīcības pierādījumi.
    Tas bijis par iemeslu Administratīvajai apgabaltiesai secināt, ka izskatāmajā gadījumā pieteicēja tiesību un brīvību ierobežojums nav noteikts tiesību aktos, bet piemērots pēc analoģijas un līdz ar to neatbilst likuma atrunas principam.
    Senatoru kolēģija līdzīgi saskata problēmu ar pieteicēja tiesību un brīvību ierobežojuma noteikšanu, to piemērojot pēc analoģijas, kas pirmšķietami
    neatbilstu Hartas 52.panta 1.punktam un tiesiskās drošības principam.

    12. (…)
    Šajā kontekstā vietā ir šaubas par to, ciktāl interpretējams regulas Nr. 1178/2011 ARA.GEN.355.punkta „e” apakšpunkts, ja valsts regulējumā nav paredzēts konkrēts terminēts aizliegums kārtot prasmju pārbaudi privātpilota apliecības saņemšanai. Proti, vai šādu ierobežojumu, respektējot Hartas 51.panta 1.punktā noteikto un tiesiskās drošības principu, var tieši atvasināt no šīs regulas normas vai pēc analoģijas – no regulas Nr. 1178/2011 ARA.FCL.300.punkta„f”apakšpunkta. Tāpat no regulas Nr. 1178/2011 sistēmas nav skaidrs, kāpēc terminēts aizliegums atkārtoti kārtot pārbaudījumu paredzēts tikai, ja iegūti pretendenta negodīgas rīcības pierādījumi teorētisko zināšanu pārbaudes gadījumā, bet tas pats nav paredzēts gadījumiem, kad iegūti pretendenta negodīgas rīcības pierādījumi prasmju pārbaudē.