At a session of the Chairs of Senate’s Departments, convened by the President of the Supreme Court, it was held that a dispute between an individual and a municipality concerning the extension of a lease agreement is subject to the civil procedure. At the same time, it was decided that the application in question should, however, be reviewed by an administrative court. This decision was taken in order to ensure access to justice and an effective judicial protection, taking into account individual circumstances.

The municipality had refused to renew the land lease agreement to the individual. The individual applied to court. The application was refused under the administrative procedure, stating that the claim was subject to the civil procedure. The application was then refused under the civil procedure, stating that the claim was subject to the administrative procedure. When the individual resubmitted the application to the Administrative District Court, a judge referred the case to the President of the Supreme Court for resolving the issue of jurisdiction.

At the session of the Chairs of Senate’s Departments it was held that the municipality, when concluding a land lease agreement for the creation of a kitchen garden, was acting as any landowner, and therefore the refusal to renew such an agreement with a person who had inherited the obligations arising from the concluded land lease was to be examined under private law regulations. Accordingly, the dispute is to be settled in civil proceedings.

The fact that the municipal council has adopted a decision on the lease of a land unit belonging to the municipality and the conclusion of a land lease agreement does not confer a public law status on the lease agreement. In other words, the dispute is not subject to the administrative procedure.

Nevertheless, at the session of the Chairs of Senate’s Departments it was held that the application in question should be examined by an administrative court. This was explained by the necessity to ensure access to justice and effective protection of rights in circumstances where there is no appeal against a decision adopted in civil proceedings whereby it is refused to admit an application.

Moreover, it was emphasised at the session of the Chairs of Senate’s Departments that a judge is obliged to refer to the President of the Supreme Court in case of doubt in order to resolve the issue of jurisdiction. A situation where a judge has already once refused to accept an application on the ground that a case was not subject to a relevant procedure was pointed out as an example.

Pursuant to Section 50, Paragraph five of the law “On Judicial Power”, the President of the Supreme Court convenes, participates with voting rights and presides over sessions of the Chairs of Senate’s Departments at which an issue of jurisdiction of a case submitted by a judge or a court is decided.

 

Information prepared by

Ilze Butkus, Communication adviser of the Supreme Court

Telephone: +371 67020302; e-mail: ilze.butkus@at.gov.lv