Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
The Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.859 “Regulation on the Maximum Amount of Expenditure on Legal Aid Reimbursable to a Private Individual” (hereafter–Regulation No.859), entered into force on 11 November 2011. Until 9 April 2020, when amendments to Regulation No. 859 entered into force, Regulation No. 859 provided for the following restrictions on reimbursement of expenditure on legal aid in administrative proceedings:
‘3.1. for legal consultation – EUR 19.21 per hour;
3.2. for drawing up an application, an ancillary complaint, or an administrative contract (amicable settlement) – EUR 32.01;
3.3. for drawing up an appeal and a reply to an appeal – EUR 38.42;
3.4. for drawing up a cassation complaint – EUR 45.53;
3.5. for drawing up a document necessary for settling a case (applications, petitions, or explanations (except for documents for requesting information and the documents referred to in sub-paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of this Regulation)) – EUR 25.61;
3.6. for drawing up addenda to the documents referred to in sub-paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of this Regulation –EUR 25.61;
3.7.for representation at a court hearing –EUR 28.46 per hour;
3.8.for examining one volume of case materials in court in one court instance –EUR 19.21”
In addition, paragraph 4 provided that the State reimbursed the legal consultations provided in the amount referred to in sub-paragraph 3.1 of Regulation No. 859 for no more than five hours within the framework of a particular case, but paragraph 5 stated that the State reimbursed the costs of drawing up no more than five documents referred to in sub-paragraphs 3.2., 3.3., 3.4., 3.5. and 3.6., within the framework of one case.
The applicant company is a capital company, engaged in commercial activities of trading currencies, gold and silver, as well as purchasing gold and silver jewellery. Administrative proceedings were initiated against the applicant company, and a fine had been applied. The applicant company defended its infringed rights in the administrative proceedings , as the result of which the decision by an institution was held to be unlawful. Throughout these proceedings, the applicant company was receiving legal aid, provided by a sworn advocate. Following the final ruling in the administrative proceedings, the applicant company turned to the institution and the administrative court, requesting reimbursement of its legal aid costs. The applicant company’s costs of legal aid had been reimbursed for within the amount defined in the contested norms (Regulation No. 859); however, this amount, according to the applicant company, was disproportionally small; namely the contested norms did not envisage the reimbursement of the costs of legal aid, provided by an advocate, which had been necessary to conduct the case effectively in the administrative proceedings. The applicant company contested this legal regulation before the Constitutional Court as incompatible with the right to fair trial as provided by the first paragraph of Article 92 of the Constitution (Satversme).
The Constitutional Court held that Regulation No.859 (as in force until 9 April 2020) was incompatible with the right to fair trial as provided by Article 92 of the Constitution, as it did not envisage the right to compensation for legal aid expenses in a reasonable amount.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The state must provide right to reimbursement of expenses for legal aid in reasonable amount. Though the state also has to take into account budgetary restrictions nevertheless amount of reimbursement of expenses for legal aid must be in balance with interests of public expenditure and also in such amount which does not undermine the right to fair trial.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court found Regulation No.859 (as in force until 9 April 2020) as incompatible with the right to fair trial as provided by Article 92 of the Constitution, because contested legal regulation did not envisage the right to compensation of expenses for legal aid in reasonable amount.
The Cabinet of Ministers amended Regulation No.859 on 7 April 2020 (amendments entered into force as from 9 April 2020) by raising amounts of reimbursement twice.
10.2. Being aware of the supremacy of the European Union law, Latvia has included in the second paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, which provides that in adopting and applying the national legal provisions, [the institutions and the courts] must take into consideration the legal acts of the European Union, which strengthen the democracy, and. the interpretation provided by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (compare, see Judgement of the Constitutional Court of 6 March 2019 in Case No.2018-11-01, para. 16.2.). Pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Treaty of the European Union, the European Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereafter – the Charter), and the Charter has the same legal value as the Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Constitutional Court recognised that the Charter, essentially, comprises also the general legal principles of the European Union (see, for example, Judgement of the Constitutional Court of 13 November 2021 in Case No.2018-18-01, para. 15.2.1.). The first and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter set out that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy, in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal, established by law. Everyone must have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Effective legal remedies before a court is a general legal principle of the European Union, founded on the shared constitutional traditions of the Member States, as well as Article 6 and Article 13 of the [European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]. The said principle applies to the Member States also when they implement the legal acts of the European Union (see: Explanations on Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Convention which Drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 14 December2007(2007/C303/02)). This means that the right of access to a court is applicable in all situations, involving the rights and freedoms, guaranteed in the European Union. The said principle also means that the Member States of the European Union must ensure such a system of legal remedies and a procedure that ensure that these rights are respected in accordance with the European Union law (see Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 March 2007 in Case C-432/05 Unibet, paras. 37–42) and national legal acts may not decrease effective legal protection of rights (see Judgement of the Court of Justice by the European Union of 22 December 2010 in Case C-279/09 DEB, para. 59).
10.2. Latvijai, apzinoties Satversmes 68.panta otrajā daļā ietverto Eiropas Savienības tiesību pārākumu un pieņemot un piemērojot nacionālās tiesību normas, ir jāņem vērā demokrātiju stiprinoši Eiropas Savienības tiesību akti un Eiropas Savienības Tiesas judikatūrā nostiprinātā to interpretācija (sal. sk. Satversmes tiesas 2019.gada 6.marta sprieduma lietā Nr.2018-11-01 16.2.punktu). Atbilstoši Līguma par Eiropas Savienību 6.panta 1.punktam Eiropas Savienība atzīst tiesības, brīvības un principus, kas izklāstīti Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartā (turpmāk –Harta), un Hartai ir tāds pats spēks kā Līgumam par Eiropas Savienību un Līgumam par Eiropas Savienības darbību. Satversmes tiesa ir atzinusi, ka Hartā pēc būtības ir ietverti arī Eiropas Savienības vispārējie tiesību principi (sk., piemēram, Satversmes tiesas 2021.gada 13.novembra sprieduma lietā Nr.2018-18-01 15.2.1.punktu). Hartas 47.panta pirmajā un otrajā daļā ir noteikts, ka ikvienai personai, kuras tiesības un brīvības, kas garantētas Savienības tiesībās, tikušas pārkāptas, ir tiesības uz efektīvu tiesību aizsardzību, ievērojot nosacījumus, kuri paredzēti šajā pantā. Ikvienai personai ir tiesības uz taisnīgu, atklātu un laikus veiktu lietas izskatīšanu neatkarīgā un objektīvā, tiesību aktos noteiktā tiesā. Ikvienai personai ir iespējas saņemt konsultāciju, aizstāvību un pārstāvību. Efektīva tiesību aizsardzība tiesā ir Eiropas Savienības vispārējs tiesību princips, kas pamatots dalībvalstu kopīgās konstitucionālās tradīcijās, kā arī Konvencijas 6.un 13.pantā. Minētais princips attiecas arī uz dalībvalstīm, īstenojot Eiropas Savienības tiesību aktus (sk.: Paskaidrojums par 47.pantu –Tiesības uz efektīvu tiesību aizsardzību un taisnīgu tiesu. Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartu izstrādājušā Konventa 2007.gada 14.decembra Paskaidrojumi (2007/C303/02) attiecībā uz Pamattiesību hartu).Tas nozīmē, ka tiesības uz tiesas pieejamību ir piemērojamas visās situācijās, kurās iesaistītas Eiropas Savienības tiesībās garantētās tiesības un brīvības. Minētais princips nozīmē arī to, ka Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīm ir jāizveido tiesiskās aizsardzības līdzekļu sistēma un kārtība, kas nodrošina šo tiesību ievērošanu saskaņā ar Eiropas Savienības tiesībām (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2007.gada 13. marta sprieduma lietā C-432/05 „Unibet”37.–42.punktu), un valsts tiesību akti nedrīkst mazināt tiesību efektīvu tiesisko aizsardzību (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas2010.gada 22.decembra sprieduma lietā C-279/09 „DEB”59.punktu).
