This Violates the Principle of Justice! 0 19

The Riga City Court has appealed to the Constitutional Court to assess the compliance with the Satversme of several provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers' regulations from previous years that regulated the calculation procedure for water leakage in multi-apartment buildings. And today, the Constitutional Court issued a verdict on this case.

The court found that subparagraph 19.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers' regulations of December 9, 2008, No. 1013 "Procedure for calculating the payment by the owner of an apartment in a multi-apartment residential building for services related to the use of apartment property" in the version effective from October 1, 2013, to November 21, 2019, is not in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the difference in water consumption may arise from various circumstances, and placing the entire burden of covering the difference in water consumption on a person whose water meters installed in their apartment property have not been verified within three months after the deadline, regardless of the reasons for the difference, is disproportionate.

The contested provision established that in cases where there is a difference between the readings of the common building water meter and those installed in apartment properties with water meters, including the amount of water lost due to accidents and repairs, the difference in water consumption is to be paid by the person whose apartment property water meter was found to be unverified within three months after the verification deadline.

The Constitutional Court indicated that it is unacceptable for a person who has not ensured the verification of the water meters installed in their apartment property to avoid making the corresponding payment. That is, the person must pay for the amount of water they have consumed. However, the occurrence of a difference in water consumption may be related not only to the failure to ensure the verification of the meters but also to other circumstances, such as repair work on the water supply system, accidents, or water leakage due to poor technical condition of the water supply system. Despite this, the contested provision deviated from the principles of civil law regarding the relationships of co-owners and placed the entire burden of covering the difference in water consumption on the person who did not ensure the verification of the meters installed in their apartment property. If the obligation to cover the entire difference in water consumption is imposed solely on this person, regardless of why the difference arose, a result corresponding to the principles of proportionality and justice cannot be achieved. In this regard, the Constitutional Court found that the restriction of fundamental rights included in the contested provision is disproportionate, and the contested provision does not comply with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court also took into account that the contested provision has been applied in several civil cases for which a final decision has already entered into force. Therefore, declaring it invalid from the moment of issuance could undermine the trust of other persons in the certainty of legal regulation and affect trust in the state and rights. In these circumstances, the Constitutional Court concluded that it is not possible to declare the contested provision invalid from the moment of its issuance. However, in order to protect the rights of other persons in a comparable situation, the Constitutional Court declared the contested provision invalid from the moment of infringement of fundamental rights concerning the defendants in civil cases pending in the Riga City Court and other persons in civil cases that have not yet been concluded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.