12 December, 2016
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, 2016
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, 2016
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, 2016
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.
2 November, 2016
2 November, the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court (SC) terminated the proceedings in connection with application by company registered in the British Virgin Islands Recoletos Limited on declaration enforceable in the Republic of Latvia the order of 29 April 2013 of Christoper Clarke, Judge of the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom, by applying the means for securing claims provided for in Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Law. Final decision of the court will be drawn up until 16 November.
27 October, 2016
On 26 October, 2016, the Department of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court decided to reject initiating of cassation proceedings, thus ruling of the December, 2015, of Riga Regional Court Civil Cases panel that partially satisfies the claim have entered into force.
22 August, 2016
Having received the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 19 August, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court, which satisfied the application, filled by “Latvijas propāna gāze” Ltd., and revoked the decision of the State Revenue Service to pay tax payment to the state budget. The Supreme Court reviewed the case in written procedure concerning the cassation complaint of the State Revenue Service on the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court. Previously, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the case, until the Court of Justice of the European Union will adopt a decision regarding preliminary question. The Supreme Court wanted to specify, whether the code of the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union applied by the declarant in this case, or the code applied by the State Revenue Service is applicable to gas.
11 August, 2016
August 11, 2016 Having received the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 9 August, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court reviewed the cassation complaint filed by the farm regarding the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court declaring that a decision of the Rural Support Service, by which the applicant is obliged to pay back received support, is found justified. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court.
20 July, 2016
On 15 July, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the case initiated upon application of “Aqua Pro” Ltd., to abolish the decision of the State Revenue Service. By the foregoing the decision, the applicant was imposed an obligation to pay customs tax and value-added tax, as well as appropriate overdue charge and fine. By referring to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, the Supreme Court wants to specify, how importer’s obligation to act in good faith, which is mentioned in Article 220 (2) (b) of the Council Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, should be made concrete in general, if the report presented by the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) contains acquired data, which is indicative of false information provided by the exporter, and information indicating the fact that customs authority of the exporting state made a mistake, when issuing A certificate. Moreover, it is necessary to specify, whether significance should be given to fact that the applicant’s goods are not purchased directly from the company in Cambodia. Namely, the applicant made the purchase of goods from the German company, based on the concluded distribution agreement. Thus, all the cooperation has been with the mentioned company and customs formalities have been completed on the basis of the documentation submitted by the seller of the goods. The applicant has not been related to the Cambodian merchant. Proceedings are stayed in the case until the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union comes into effect.
23 May, 2016
On 17 May, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the case, in which it should be resolved whether 0% VAT tax rate is applicable to transport service related to transit of goods (Section 7(1)(2) of the Value Added Tax Law), if actual forwarder had not had a licence to perform international carriage. The Supreme Court decided to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, because those may be important in adjudication of a case. Proceedings in the case have been stayed, until the Court of Justice of the European Union adopts a judgement due to referral for preliminary ruling.
22 March, 2016
On 9 March, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court suspended the proceedings in the case regarding the application filed by the state joint-stock company “Latvijas Dzelzceļš” (Latvian Railways) on revocation of the decision of the State Revenue Service on calculation of customs tax and value-added tax. In the decision adopted at the assignment sitting, the Supreme Court recognised that the question of application of the provisions of the European Union’s law is crucial in deciding of the case; therefore, a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union should be requested. Proceedings are stayed in the case until the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union will enter into force.
4 March, 2016
On 1 March, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Administrative regional court, which satisfied the application, filed by the applicant, and revoked the decision of the authority regarding payment of extra import duty, delay penalty and fine, and value-added tax, delay penalty and fine. The Supreme Court recognised conclusions of the appellate instance court as reasoned, considering arguments brought by the State Revenue Service, namely, that customs value was determined in inappropriate amount, to be ill-founded.