On 21 March, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the case in which the Administrative Regional Court rejected the application of the applicant for the annulment of the decision of State Revenue Service, imposing on the applicant additional value added tax obligations. Proceedings in the case are suspended until the coming into force of a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice.
8 February, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court in oral proceedings heard the case on cassation appeal of the religious organization “Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church” against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court which dismissed the application for imposition of obligation for the Register of Enterprises to enter the applicant into register of religious organizations and institutions. The Supreme Court heard the parties to proceedings and stated that a ruling on the case will be available on 10 March.
On 31 January the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court in written proceedings reviewed the cassation appeal of Latvian state (in the person of the Ministry of Culture) and the Latvian Filmmakers Union and 44 film authors against the Riga Regional Court judgment of 22 April 2014 in claim of Latvian state against AS "Rīgas Kinostudija" on the recognition of copyrights on 973 films produced by Latvian SSR Public undertaking "Rīgas Kinostudija" that were made during the period from 1964 to 4 May 1990, and in claim of the third party for recognition of copyrights for these films.
Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) in December stayed the proceedings in the case on the maternity benefit calculations provided that a person has the whole insurance period not worked in Latvia, but in institutions of the European Union.
12 December, Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed cassation complaint of the State Revenue Service and upheld the judgment of Regional Administrative Court, which satisfied the application of the Applicant and imposed the State Revenue Service a duty to reimburse paid income tax to the Applicant. The Supreme Court judgment held that the Regional Administrative Court correctly established the Applicant's permanent residence in Kosovo, as the court took into account Applicant’s actions in order to declare place of residence in Kosovo as well as other circumstances - employment, marital status, etc. The SC judgment also stated that the fact that income of Applicant that probably was not subject to tax in Kosovo fell within the competence of national authorities. Even if income was subject to tax, it would not in general resolve the case on its merits as desired by the State Revenue Service, because the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kosovo and its tax administration, in the light of the fact that the applicant in accordance with national laws and regulations was not Latvian tax resident, is not subject to Latvian taxation legislation. Thus, the Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Law "On Taxes and Duties" cannot act as legal basis for imposing a non-resident income tax on foreign gained income, if this foreign income is not taxed in respective foreign country.
9 December, Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court terminated the proceedings on ancillary complaint due to the fact that the Applicant of ancillary complaint, the Public Utilities Commission, had no right to submit an ancillary complaint on decision of 21 October 2016 of the Regional Administrative Court. The Supreme Court in its decision stated that in order to appeal against the court's decision, it was necessary to establish infringement of subjective rights of Applicant. Administrative Procedure Law foresaw the possibility of lodging an ancillary complaint only in case of negative decisions. In the case under examination, the Public Utilities Commission submitted the ancillary complaint against a decision that dismissed the Applicant’s (JSC "Latvijas Gāze") temporary protection request and the operative part of which corresponded to the Public Utilities Commission's point of view on the right outcome of the processing of temporary protection request. Considering that in the case of satisfaction of the ancillary complaint, the outcome of contested decision would remain unchanged; the court's decision in regard to Commission was equivalent to such decision that meets the interests of the Applicant.
1 December, the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) annulled the judgement of the Chamber of Civil Cases that dismissed the Belarusian Company - Open Joint Stock Company "Polotsktransneft Druzhba" - action against "LatRosTrans" Ltd on recognition of ownership, granting possession of oil and compensation for damage. The Department of Civil Cases referred the case to Latgale Regional Court for retrial. SC acknowledged that the Court of Appeal failed to clarify the circumstances of the case and had not provided a legal assessment; namely, the Court had not assessed all the documents signed by the parties on the division of property and the agreements in conjunction to other evidence in the case. In SC’s opinion, the Court had not assessed the applicants' arguments concerning oil inventory, namely, if technological oil would be invested as share capital of "LatRosTrans" Ltd as oil pipeline accessory thus becoming a property of "LatRosTrans" Ltd then it would be reflected in "LatRosTrans" Ltd Annual Reports in the same way as technological stocks of oil products.
28 November, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the Regional Administrative Court judgment dismissing the application of trade-union "LABA" on annulment of the decision of CPCB (Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption), thus imposing obligation on trade-union to provide information on the use of funds in organizing picket in support of the Chair of Riga City Council on 3 December 2013. The Supreme Court considered that Administrative Regional Court fairly recognized the Bureau’s request for information lawful.
25 November, Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed applicants' claim against the Republic of Latvia acting through the Ministry of Finance on Investment Agreement concluded in 2008 by JSC "Reverta", SJSC "Latvian Mortgage and Land Bank" (VAS „Latvijas Hipotēku un zemes banka”) and SJSC "Privatisation Agency" (VAS “Privatizācijas aģentūra”). The court reclaimed from Valerijs Kargins, Viktors Krasovickis, Georgijs Krasovickis and Aleksandra Krasovicka, costs of court proceedings - in favor of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia EUR 7,500 from each person, in favor of JSC "Reverta" EUR 7,500 from each, in favor of SJSC "Privatisation Agency" EUR 7,500 from each and in favor of JSC "Latvian Development Finance Institution Altum" (previously - JSC "Latvian Mortgage and Land Bank") EUR 6,951.68 from each. The final judgment will be drawn on 9 December and following the date of reasoned ruling, parties within 30 days would be able to appeal in cassation.
21 November, the Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) approved a settlement between the parties to the dispute on the trademark "Omas gardumi". Already on 8 November at preliminary hearing parties informed the Court about their terms of settlement, though had not finalized the settlement.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia
Brivibas bulvaris 36,
Riga, LV – 1511