The Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court

The print version

Plan of distribution of cases, 2018

 

 

1. In the Department of Administrative Cases, distribution of cases is determined particularly for following categories of cases:

1.1. Adjudication of cases under cassation procedure;

1.2. Review of ancillary complaints;

1.3. Review of cases falling under jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as of the court of the first instance.

 

2. In categories of cases, listed in Items 1.1-1.2 of the present plan, distribution of cases is performed according to the alphabetical list of surnames of judges, observing specialization of judges.

 

3. In categories of cases, listed Item 1.3 of the present plan, distribution of cases is performed by drawing lots. Judges, who were not allocated cases of such category at all or were allocated such cases the least during a year, participate in drawing.

 

4. The Chair of the Department may step back from the basic principle of distribution of cases set in Item 2 of the present plan in following cases:

4.1. Due to excessive work load or insufficient work load of the judge;

4.2. In order to provide a reasonable time period required for adjudication of cases;

4.3. When distributing non-reviewed case, if a judge terminates judicial office;

4.4. If there are circumstances which may serve as grounds for recusal or removal of a judge (Section 117 of the Administrative Procedure Law);

4.5. If the assistant to the reporting judge is in close degree of kinship with a participant of the proceedings, or if there exist circumstances which could cause doubts about impartiality.

 

5. Cases are allocated to the Chair of the Department depending on the administrative work load.

 

6. Judges have specialized in following branches of law:

 

 

Judge

Specialization

6.1.

Dzintra Amerika

Cases related to:

a)     Tax law;

b)     Appealing against decisions of the Public Utilities Commission and the Financial and Capital Market Commission;

c)     Competition law.

6.2. 

Andris Gulans

Cases related to:

a)        Social protection issues (social insurance, social aid, employment);

b)       Civil service issues;

c)        Issues on individuals’ citizenship, migration and asylum;

d)   Appealing against decisions of the Minister of Interior regarding entry of foreigners in the list of persons prohibited to enter the Republic of Latvia.

6.3.

Vesma Kakste

Cases related to:

a)    Alienation (privatization) of property (land, objects);

b)   Construction and territory layout, and enviornmental law.

6.4. 

Veronika Krumina

Cases related to:

     a)    Appealing against decisions and real action of Orphan’s courts;

b)   Civil service issues;

c)   Procedural issues.

6.5. Anita Kovalevska

Cases related to:

      a) Social protection issues (social insurance, social aid, employment);

      b) Human rights.

6.6. 

Dace Mita

Cases related to:

             a)     Construction and territory layout, and enviornmental law;

b)     Civil service issues;

c)     Procedural issues.

6.7. 

Livija Slica

Cases related to:

a)        Social protection issues (social insurance, social aid, employment);

b)       Civil service issues;

c)        Alienation (privatization) of property (land, objects);

6.8. 

Rudite Vidusa

Cases related to:

a)       Competition law;

b)       Public procurement;

c)       Customs law;

d)       Issues on value added tax

6.9. Ieva Viskere

Cases related to:

  a)       Public procurement;

   b)       Allocation of structural funds of the European Union (appealing against decisions of Rural Support Service, Investment and Development Agency of Latvia);

   c)       Public law contracts;

   d)      Construction and territory layout, and environmental law;

   e)      Issues on value added tax.

 

7. In case of absence of the judge (illness, business trip, etc.), in order to ensure review of a case, it may be allocated to the judge, who has also specialized in particular branch of law, taking into account load of this judge in particular moment, or to the judge, whose load in respective moment is smaller.

 

8. A judge being absent (vacation, business trip, etc.) for more than seven days or discharging other duties (training, seminar, etc.) has not been allocated cases during this period.

 

9. By drawing lots, following compositions of court have been determined:

9.1. To review cases under cassation procedure and to review applications on newly discovered circumstances and to review of cases falling under jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as of the court of the first instance:

9.1.1. Andris Gulans, Anita Kovalevska, Dace Mita;

9.1.2. Dzintra Amerika, Vesma Kakste, Veronika Krumina;

9.1.3. Livija Slica, Rudite Vidusa, Ieva Viskere.

9.2. To review ancillary complaints:

9.2.1. Vesma Kakste, Anita Kovalevska, Dace Mita;

9.2.2. Andris Gulans, Veronika Krumina, Rudite Vidusa;

9.2.3. Dzintra Amerika, Livija Slica, Ieva Viskere.

 

10. In cases related to competition law where the reporting judge is the Chair of the department, the composition of non-reporting judges is determined by the Chair of the department, observing specialization and work laod of judges. 

 

11. If the judge, who is not the reporting judge in the composition of the court, is absent or there exist circumstances mentioned in Item 4 of present plan, the Chair of the department may determine the judge, who is not the reporting judge in the composition of the court, taking observing work load of judges.

 

12. The standard of review of cases is 90 cases per judge per year.