State liability is a contemporary phenomenon. During the Russian empire times, Soviet Union times, as well as in Latvia’s first period of independence an idea of state liability was weakly developed. State was either liable for embezzlement or squandering of money that according to law was entrusted to judges (Russian empire times and first period of independence of Latvia), or was liable for unlawful conviction or arrest (Soviet Union times).

Nowadays in Latvia state liability has formed as separate legal liability form. Both in Estonia and Latvia in order to attract state liability no relevance is given to fault of particular authority or state official. However, a state may be relieved from liability if the damage could not be prevented even fully observing diligence necessary for the performance of public duties.

State is liable for every action of its branches – legislative, executive and judicial branch. In Estonia and Latvia private law norms are applied subsidiary, if it does not contradict the idea of state liability, and in both countries under certain circumstances it is possible to receive compensation for lawful administrative act.

In Latvia legal person may be subject to non-pecuniary loss, whereas in Estonia only natural persons may be subject to non-pecuniary loss. In Estonia all issues related to state liability are mostly stipulated in one legal act – State liability act. This Law also prescribes a procedure on grant of compensation for damages caused by normative acts. As to Latvia there are no legal regulations in this regard. The understanding of state liability in Latvia is very similar to one that exists in Estonia. However, for both there is place for improvements. 

LT konference

Introduction

In absolute monarchies monarch was beyond the law. Monarch was always right, and it was impossible to doubt that, as monarch was protected by so called crown immunity. Famous is expression of King Louis XIV “I am the state” (In french: l’etat c’est moi). It was deemed that if monarch is the state and monarch does not bear any responsibility towards its citizens, then also the state may not be held liable for its actions in public sphere (state immunity).

Changes as to immunity of state started to develop along with development of ideas of constitutionalism and rule of law. More and more developed an idea that also the state is bound by law, and if the state has to comply with law, then the state may also violate it.

Latvia is a legal state and in Latvia state liability has commenced to form a separate form of legal liability along with civil liability, criminal liability and other forms of legal liability. Pursuant to doctrine of state liability a state has to bear responsibility of its actions and reimburse all loss caused to individuals in public law sphere, opposite to civil liability which pertains to actions in private law sphere. In this article the author will focus on development and understanding of idea of state liability in Latvia, comparing it with understanding that exists in Estonia.

1.  Understanding of state liability in Latvia: a short insight in history

1.1. Latvia as a part of the Russian empire (18th century – 1918)

In 18th century after the end of Great Northern War and partition of Poland contemporary Latvian territory was added to the Russian empire.[1] In the Russian empire the idea of state liability was weakly developed. It was widely accepted that the state may not bear responsibility of loss that have been caused to its citizens, as the officials should act only according to the law. All actions that deviated from the law was deemed as not the actions of the state, but actions of particulars officials, and such actions were not attributed to the state.[2]  The officials bore personal responsibility for actions that deviated from the law. Roots for such interpretation comes from maxim that King can do no wrong i.e. if state cannot commit any wrongs, then all actions that are unlawful must not be attributed to the state, but to the officials themselves.

Not only regular officials such as heads of institutions had to bear personal responsibility, but also judges, prosecutors and other court officials, as well as even elected officials. If the actions of these officials were unlawful, citizens could claim a compensation for damages in ordinary courts according to the procedure prescribed in Code on Civil Procedure and Code on Criminal procedure.[3] If a person wanted to bring a claim against a judge, prosecutor or other court official, he had to receive a prior permission. Such permission was usually given by the Civil department of the Supreme Court (in Latvian: Senāta Civilais departaments) or by Court’s chamber (in Latvian: Tiesu palāta). It was examined whether a claim had any legal grounds i.e. whether it was not truly unfounded. As to other officials, no prior permission was required.

Compensation issues was governed by civil norms, and usually compensation was granted in civil procedure. A person was also entitled to bring a civil claim in criminal procedure in regard to the crime the official committed.[4] On such occasion civil norms applied.

Although in the Russian empire the idea of state liability was weakly developed, it was accepted that state entails liability in cases of embezzlement and squandering of money that was entrusted to state officials. In 1892 the Supreme Court altered its long lasting case law and established a precedent that in cases where law (e.g. inheritance matters)  provides that money should be entrusted to judges (In Latvian: miertiesnesis), and the judge has embezzled or squandered it, the state entails liability to compensate all damages that were caused because of embezzlement and squandering.[5]

There was also a debate that state should entail liability also in cases when individuals are unlawfully convicted, detained or arrested. When the judicial reform of Alexander II started in 1864, its authors tried to persuade the monarch that state liability should also cover this sphere. However, the initiative did not succeed, and it was decided that it would be sufficient to leave grant of compensation to monarch’s discretion, that is, the courts were conferred with rights to ask the monarch such compensation, but the monarch had no obligation to grant it whatsoever.[6] Nonetheless, according to the legal doctrine in some cases, such compensation was given, but, as such rights lied wholly in monarch’s discretion, they could not be regarded as effective.[7]

In comparison, such form of state liability was not well known also in European countries i.e. in Portugal it was introduced only in year 1884, in Sweden – 1886, Norway – 1887, Denmark – 1888, Austria – 1892, France – 1895, Germany – 1898 and in Hungary – 1890.[8]

No significant changes were introduced until the collapse of the Russian Empire. They were not introduced by Law on administrative courts that was adopted in 30 May 1917.[9] In addition, the scope of state liability was not broaden even notwithstanding that in France on whose practice the Russian Empire relied a notion of service fault (in French: faute de service public) was established, providing that all actions of state officials performing state duties are attributed to the state, and therefore state entails liability for damages caused because of them.[10]

1.2. Latvia in its first period of independence (1918 – 1936)

Latvia declared its independence in 18 November 1918, and for a long time laws that were in force in the Russian empire were applicable also in Latvia insofar as they did not contradict the whole idea of independent Latvia.[11] For that reason the Supreme Court of Latvia (In Latvian: Latvijas Senāts) established the same principle of state liability in cases of embezzlement and squandering of money entrusted to judges.[12] In other cases state was not liable for unlawful actions of its officials.[13]

Latvia preserved a principle that was established in Russian Empire times i.e. principle of personal responsibility according to which the officials bore a responsibility for their unlawful actions.[14] Fault of particular officials was one of the conditions that should be met in order to receive a compensation. In other words officials bear a responsibility for their faults.[15]

In 15 February 1922 the Constitution of Latvia (In Latvia: Satversme) was adopted. The initial Constitution had no human rights catalogue, as the second part on the Constitution was never adopted. However, even if the second part of the Constitution had been adopted, it would not contain any state liability related rights.[16] Article 91 of the Constitution only provided that officials may be brought to liability for their unlawful actions in ordinary courts without receiving a permission from its superiors (elimination of administrative guarantee).

In 4 March 1921 Law on administrative courts was adopted. However, administrative courts had no competence to examine cases on compensation of damages against the officials or public authorities. The administrative courts would not be competent to examine such cases even if the new Law on administrative courts had been adopted that was elaborated in 1940 and was not adopted because of occupation of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.[17]

During the first period of independence a Law was elaborated which anticipated that Latvia will entail liability for unlawful arrests and detainments. It was submitted to Constitutional Assembly (In Latvian: Satversmes sapulce) in 1921 and was named “Law on compensation to individuals that have been unlawfully kept in prison”.[18] However, the law was not adopted.[19]

One of the most colourful expression that reflects that time understanding of state liability is expression of one of Supreme Court’s judges: “state may not act as an insurance company towards their citizens”.[20] Therefore, notwithstanding that the Russian empire was absolute monarchy, while in Latvia there was democracy, the understanding of state liability did not differ. The state entailed liability only in cases of embezzlement and squandering of money that was entrusted to judges if the law provided that money should be entrusted to judges.

1.3. Latvia under occupation of the Soviet Union (1940-1992)

In 1939 Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union, and soon after Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic was established. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian country, and in such countries it is widespread that reality differs from legal norms i.e. state does not comply with legal norms. As one of the Australian Latvians Kārlis Ātrens has mentioned “Constitution of Soviet Union is not a constitution, but merely a propaganda document to mislead the others that Soviet Union is similar to Western Europe Countries”.[21]

First Constitution of Soviet Union was adopted in 7 October 1977, so called Constitution of Brezhnev. Article 58, Paragraph tree of the Constitution provided that citizens of the Soviet Union are entitled to bring a complaint against the officials, as well as receive a compensation for damages that are caused to them because of unlawful action of public authorities, organizations and state officials in exercising state duties. The same was provided in Article 56 of the Constitution of Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (hereinafter – LSSR).[22] However, these rights were conferred only to citizens of Soviet Union. As to foreigners a separate law was adopted, but it did not contain any similar rights to those conferred to the citizens i.e. it did not contain any rights to compensation, but it contained a right to court.[23]

In 18 May 1981 the Soviet Union adopted a decree “On compensation of damages that are caused to citizens because of unlawful action of public authorities, organizations and state officials in exercising state duties”. It did not provide a right to compensation for non-pecuniary loss.[24] In legal doctrine this law was named as dead law, as in practice it was not applied.[25] The individuals may recourse to the court in regard to public law relationships only in small number of cases, that is, cases in regard to mistakes in elections and imposition of monetary fines.[26] That was the reason why the aforementioned law was nearly not applied. Sometimes it was applied in cases related to unlawfully convicted and arrested individuals.[27]

In 30 June 1987 in order to rectify the said situation a new law was adopted. It stipulated the procedure on bringing claims at court against actions of the officials if such actions infringe their rights.[28] The law was anew adopted in 2 November 1989. Slight changes were made.[29] On the basis of this law, LSSR amended Code on Civil procedure, appending the law with new section stipulating the procedure on how individuals may bring claims at court against actions of the officials.[30] However, soon after its adoption the Soviet Union collapsed, and therefore it was not widely applied. The author has not find any records of application of the law thereof.

To conclude it has to be said that in the Soviet Union grant of compensation was confined with cases where citizens were unlawfully convicted or arrested. It was not possible to receive compensation for non-pecuniary loss, and no personal liability principle, as understood in Russian empire times, was known in the Soviet Union. As to the foreigners, the foreigners did not had any rights to the compensation, including in unlawful conviction or arrest cases.

2. Understanding of state liability in contemporary Latvia (as from 1992)

After the Second World War and atrocities that were made by sovereign states, a protection of human rights gained international attention.[31] Nowadays states may not unilaterally choose what to do with their citizens, as states have to comply with principles of human rights. Therefore if states are constrained by human rights, the states could entail liability if human rights are violated. It is not impossible to escape from the liability for violating human rights, as it was possible before widely accepted endorsement of human rights. Not the officials, but state bears full responsibility, as the state could only act by its officials. The state is liable for every action that is taken by its branches – executive, legislative and judicial branch.

In 1992 law “Rights and obligations of humans and citizens” was adopted.[32] It is named as constitutional law, but that is not true, as it was adopted in regular legislative process. It was a regular law. Article 18, Paragraph 7 of the law provides entitlement to compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary loss caused to unlawfully convicted or arrested individual. It was the first time, when a person was granted with a right to compensation for non-pecuniary loss.

In 15 October 1998 VIII chapter “Human Rights” was adopted. Third sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution entitles a person to adequate compensation for unlawful infringement of his rights. The Constitutional Court has held that in this article a general guarantee is enshrined – if state has infringed rights of individual, the individual is entitled to adequate compensation.[33] This quote symbolises what is called a legal state i.e. state is not a subject beyond the law, and also the state, including the parliament is bound and in the meantime constrained by the law.

At the time when VIII Chapter of the Constitution was adopted, until the third reading the only norm that provided compensation was the second sentence of Article 94: “Individuals who are unjustifiably arrested are entitled to compensation”. Only one month before the adoption of the Constitution, that is, on 3 September 1998 Legal bureau of the Parliament suggested to append the Constitution with more universal norm. [34] The norm provided compensation for all persons not only in cases of unjustified arrests, but in all situations when their rights have been violated. This norm is prescribed in the third sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution.

In 3 November 1998 a new law concerning state liability was adopted. It stipulates conditions on which a person, for example, who has been unlawfully arrested, detained or convicted may receive a compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary loss.[35] The law provides that claim for non-pecuniary loss are heard under the procedure prescribed in the Law on Civil procedure, whereas claim for pecuniary loss – under the Law on Administrative procedure. In its content this law is similar to the Soviet Union decree that was adopted on May 1981. It should be mentioned, that it is intended to replace this law with a new law, providing that all state liability cases in this regard will be heard by administrative courts, nor by ordinary courts. Currently, the law is being adopted in the Parliament, and it is planned to be adopted within year 2017.

In 1 February 2004 Law on Administrative procedure was adopted. Article 92 entitles a person to compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary loss caused by administrative acts, administrative agreements and others actions by public authorities. In 2 June 2005 Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions was adopted. This law particularizes Article 92 of Law on Administrative procedure, providing more-specific norms as to the compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary loss. Also legal persons may be subject to non-pecuniary loss.[36] These cases are heard by administrative courts.

Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions obliges the injured person to avert and mitigate the loss insofar as it is possible, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. If the injured person deliberately causes loss or increases the amount of loss, the person is not entitled to compensation in this regard.[37] Also the relevance is given to the fact on how much the loss was foreseeable, albeit the law does not provide that. Foreseeability is taken into account assessing whether a causal link exists.[38]

Latvia recognizes also liability for breach of European Union law.[39] Such cases are very rare, and they are heard by ordinary courts. Latvia has not adopted any legal regulation in this regard, and that is one of the largest reasons why in Latvia such claims are not brought at court. Also Latvia has not adopted any legal regulation as to liability for loss caused by legal acts, albeit the Supreme Court has held that according to Article 92, third sentence of the Constitution individuals are entitled to compensation also in such occasions.[40] Such claims are heard by ordinary courts on the basis of Article 92 of the Constitution (direct applicability).[41]

In Latvia no relevance is given to fault of particular public authority or state official. Fault is not a prerequisite to hold state liable for actions of its authorities and officials. If public authorities have acted unlawfully, then state in accordance to relevant laws must bear liability for damages that are caused to individuals. In Latvia it is widely accepted that actions of public authorities and state officials are attributable to state.

3. Understanding of state liability in contemporary Estonia

In contrast to the pre-World War II Constitutions, the 1992 Constitution sets forth a fundamental right to the compensation for damage caused by an unlawful action.[42] Article 25 of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right for moral and material damage caused by unlawful action of any person. Pursuant to this article, a person may bring a claim at court against public authority even if there is no law governing the compensation for damage (direct applicability). The Supreme Court of Estonia has decided that under such circumstances the general principles of compensation for damage must be taken into account.[43]

The compensation for damage caused by public authority is regulated by the State liability act (hereinafter – Liability act).[44]  It was adopted in 2 May 2011, and it is applicable only in public law relationships, including in administrative matters, and individuals may even claim a compensation for damages caused by legal acts (laws etc.) and in certain circumstances by unlawful judgments. If damages are caused in private law relationships, damages are not compensated under Liability act, but mainly under Law of Obligations Act.[45]

In addition to Liability act, in Estonia there are some specific laws that regulate the compensation for damage caused by public authority, for example, Act on Compensation for Damage Caused by State to Person by Unjust Deprivation of Liberty.[46] Pursuant to this act a person may request a compensation for being detained on suspicion of a criminal offence but released when the suspicion ceased to exist. It should be mentioned that this act is not only applicable in public law relationships, but also in private law relationships.

In Estonia damages are mainly compensated under public law provisions. However, Liability act provides that if it not in conflict with the nature of public law relationships also private law provisions concerning compensation for damage may be applicable.[47] Therefore under certain circumstances also provisions of Law of Obligations Act may be applied. In Latvia it is similar to Estonia – private law provisions in regard of compensation for damages may be applied in sphere of state liability, unless the law provides otherwise or application of private law provisions contradicts provisions of Constitution, especially Article 92 of the Constitution.

In Estonia compensation for damages is not based on fault of particular authority or individual that adopted unlawful decision, including administrative act. However, a state may be relieved from liability if the damage could not be prevented even fully observing diligence necessary for the performance of public duties.[48] Under Liability act damages are compensated if the following conditions are met:

  • unlawful action of the public authority in public law relationships;
  • violation of a right of particular individual;
  • damages are caused to particular individual;
  • causal link between the violation of a right and the damages;
  • a person has exhausted obligatory primary legal remedies (Article 7 (1) of Liability act).[49] In general, the same conditions apply to non-pecuniary loss.[50]

Liability act provides that non-pecuniary loss may be caused only to natural persons, and financial compensation for non-pecuniary loss may be claimed only concerning to wrongful degradation of dignity, damage to health, deprivation of liberty, violation of the rights to home, private life, correspondence and defamation.[51] In Latvia the law does not provide an exhaustive list of rights in regard to which a compensation for non-pecuniary loss may be claimed, as it is not possible to name all rights that are enjoyed by natural and legal persons.[52] Therefore in Latvia individuals may claim a financial compensation also if their freedom of expression is violated, while in Estonia it is impossible, as the law does not provide that. It raises a question whether such restriction is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Estonia legal persons such as companies, associations may not claim compensation for non-pecuniary loss, as it is accepted that such loss may not be caused to legal persons. However, it should be taken into account that European Court of Human rights recognizes legal person’s rights to compensation for non-pecuniary loss i.e. also non-pecuniary loss may be caused also to legal persons.[53] That being said, such understanding of non-pecuniary loss may violate the European Convention on Human rights. In Latvia it is widely accepted that also legal persons may be subject to non-pecuniary loss.

Usually in order to claim a compensation one of the prerequisites is unlawful action of the state. However, in Estonia it is accepted that under certain circumstances compensation may be claimed also concerning to lawful actions, for example, lawful administrative act, which extraordinarily restricts the fundamental rights or freedoms of the person. Meanwhile, the Liability act provides that compensation in such situations may not be claimed, for instance, if the restriction of fundamental rights or freedoms was in the interests of particular person or if the person may claim compensation from elsewhere, for example, from insurance company.[54]

In Latvia persons may also claim compensation for lawful administrative act. One of the cases is where lawful administrative act is repelled because of changes in factual or legal circumstances that if such circumstances had existed at the time of issuance of administrative act it would not have been issued.[55] There are also other cases when compensation may be claimed, and Council of Europe has even adopted a recommendation in this regard.[56]

Conclusions

State liability is a contemporary phenomenon. During the Russian empire times, Soviet Union times, as well as in Latvia’s first period of independence an idea of state liability was weakly developed. State was either liable for embezzlement or squandering of money that according to law was entrusted to judges (Russian empire times and first period of independence of Latvia), or was liable for unlawful conviction or arrest (Soviet Union times).

Nowadays in Latvia state liability has formed as separate legal liability form. Both in Estonia and Latvia in order to attract state liability no relevance is given to fault of particular authority or state official. However, a state may be relieved from liability if the damage could not be prevented even fully observing diligence necessary for the performance of public duties.

State is liable for every action of its branches – legislative, executive and judicial branch. In Estonia and Latvia private law norms are applied subsidiary, if it does not contradict the idea of state liability, and in both countries under certain circumstances it is possible to receive compensation for lawful administrative act.

In Latvia legal person may be subject to non-pecuniary loss, whereas in Estonia only natural persons may be subject to non-pecuniary loss. In Estonia all issues related to state liability are mostly stipulated in one legal act – State liability act. This Law also prescribes a procedure on grant of compensation for damages caused by normative acts. As to Latvia there are no legal regulations in this regard. The understanding of state liability in Latvia is very similar to one that exists in Estonia. However, for both there is place for improvements. 

Pirmspublikācija konferences rakstu krājumā. Pieejama: http://lawphd.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/International-Conference-of-PhD-students-and-young-researchers-2017.pdf

[1] K. Voldemārs, ‘Latvijas PSR valsts un tiesību vēsture II’ (Riga: 1980) 193-197

[2] O. Ozoliņš, ‘Valsts atbildība par ierēdņiem’ [1935] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 2 283-295

[3] V. Bukovskis, ‘Civīlprocesa mācība grāmata’ (Riga: 1933) 138, 155, 553-554

[4] V. Bukovskis, ‘Civīlprocesa mācība grāmata’ (Riga: 1933) 138, 155, 553-554

[5] Case no. 92/52 [1892] Joint meeting of Supreme Court of Russian Empire

[6] A. Langenfelds, ‘Valsts atlīdzība nevainīgi pie tiesas sauktiem’ (Riga: 1938) 11-12

[7] L. Kantors, ‘Atlīdzība personām, kas bez vainas sauktas pie kriminālatbildības’ [1927] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 10/11 348-354

[8] A. Langenfelds, ‘Valsts atlīdzība nevainīgi pie tiesas sauktiem’ (Riga: 1938) 11-12

[9] V. Bukovskis, ‘Administratīvās tiesas reforma’ [1925] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 7-9 820, J. Kalacs, ‘Pārdomas par administratīvo tiesu’ [1937] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 2 318

[10] O. Ozoliņš, ‘Valsts atbildība par ierēdņiem’ [1935] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 2 283-295, M. Butāns, ‘Valsts atbildības izpratne’ [1999] Likums un Tiesības 1.sējums 4 108

[11] Autoru kolektīvs, ‘Latvijas valsts tiesību avoti. Valsts dibināšana – neatkarības atjaunošana. Dokumenti un komentāri’ (Riga: 2015) 299

[12] Case no. 1/32 [1932] Joint meeting of Latvian Supreme Court

[13] O. Ozoliņš, ‘Valsts atbildība par ierēdņiem’ [1935] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 2 283-295, O. Ozoliņš, ‘Vai valsts atbild par ierēdņu darbību’ [1935] Rīts 268 16

[14] F. Kamradziuss, ‘Kriminālprocesa likumi pēc 1926.gada izdevuma, ar vēlākiem pārgrozījumiem un papildinājumiem, izsludinātiem līdz 1934.gada 15.februārim un Senāta paskaidrojumiem, kas doti laikmetā no 1919.gada līdz 1934.gada 15.februārim’ (Riga: 1934) 10

[15] P. Mucinieks, ‘Valsts darbinieku atbildība’ [1935] Pasta-Telegrāfa Dzīve 5 332-335, [U.a], ‘Valsts darbinieku atbildība’ [1933] Jaunais Ceļš 12 1-2

[16] [U.a], ‘Latvijas Satversmes Sapulces stenogrammu izvilkums (1920–1922). Latvijas Republikas Satversmes projekta apspriešana un apstiprināšana’ (Riga: 2006), Autoru kolektīvs, ‘Latvijas valsts tiesību avoti. Valsts dibināšana – neatkarības atjaunošana. Dokumenti un komentāri’ (Riga: 2015) 59

[17] [U.a], ‘Likumprojekts par administratīvo procesu’ [1940] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 4 715-724, [U.a], ‘Būs jauns likums par administratīvām tiesām’ [1940] Latvijas kareivis 116 6

[18] A. Langenfelds, ‘Valsts atlīdzība nevainīgi pie tiesas sauktiem’ (Riga: 1938) 11-35

[19] A. Langenfelds, ‘Valsts atlīdzība nevainīgi pie tiesas sauktiem’ (Riga: 1938) 11-35

[20] O. Ozoliņš, ‘Valsts atbildība par ierēdņiem’ [1935] Tieslietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis 2 283-295

[21] K. Ātrens K, ‘Vai Padomju Savienības konstitūcija ir konstitūcija’ [1983] Austrālijas latvietis 1682 5-6

[22] Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic Constitution [1977] Article 56

[23] Parliament Law on Legal condition of foreigners in the Soviet Union [1981]

[24] M. Svīre, ‘Cik tālu esam no tiesiskas valsts’ [1989] Padomju Jaunatne 8 4, [U.a], ‘PSRS Augstākajā tiesā’ [1998] Cīņa 298 1

[25] V. Skudra, ‘Kādai būt tiesiskai valstij? Par likumu virsvaldību… zem cauriem jumtiem’ [1988] Padomju Jaunatne 232 2

[26] Parliament LSSR Code on Civil procedure [1963] Chapter III

[27] M. Svīre, ‘Cik tālu esam no tiesiskas valsts’ [1989] Padomju Jaunatne 8 4

[28] Parliament Law on Procedure on bringing a complaint about unlawful actions of state officials that infringe rights of citizens [1987]

[29] Parliament Law on Procedure on bringing a complaint about unlawful actions of state officials that infringe rights of citizens [1987]

[30] Parliament Amendments to LSSR Code on Civil procedure [1990]

[31] M. Kēnigs, ‘Cilvēktiesības’ (Riga: 2010) 43

[32] Parliament Constitutional law on Rights and obligations of humans and citizens [1992]

[33] Case no. 2011-21-01 [2012] Latvian Constitutional Court, Case no. 2014-06-03 [2014] Latvian Constitutional Court, Case no. 2014-13-01 [2015] Latvian Constitutional Court

[34] Letter of Parliament Legal Bureau no. 12/17-702 [1998]. Available at Parliament’s archive

[35] Parliament Law on Compensation of damages caused by unlawful or unjustified action of investigative authorities, prosecutor’s office or court [1998]

[36] Case no. 2011-21-01 [2012] Latvian Constitutional Court

[37] Parliament Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions [2005] Article 10

[38] Parliament Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions [2005] Article 6

[39] M. Haba, ‘The case of state liability: 20 years after Francovich’ (London: 2015) 70

[40] Case no. SKA-16/2012 [2012] Latvian Supreme Court

[41] Case no. 2011-21-01 [2012] Latvian Constitutional Court

[42] W. Baginska, ‘Damages for Violations of Human Rights’ (London: 2016) 44

[43] Case no. 3-3-1-35-10 [2011] Estonian Supreme Court

[44] Parliament State Liability Act [2001]

[45] Parliament Law of Obligations Act [2001]

[46] Parliament Act on Compensation for Damage Caused by State to Person by Unjust Deprivation of Liberty [1997]

[47] Parliament State Liability Act [2001] Article 7 (4)

[48] Parliament State Liability Act [2001] Article 13 (3)

[49] W. Baginska, ‘Damages for Violations of Human Rights’ (London: 2016) 50

[50] W. Baginska, ‘Damages for Violations of Human Rights’ (London: 2016) 50

[51] Parliament State Liability Act [2001] Article 9

[52] Parliament Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions [2005] Article 8-9

[53] Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal, Case no. 35382/97 [2000] European Court of Human Rights, J. Priekulis, ‘Personiskā kaitējuma atlīdzinājums juridiskai personai administratīvajā procesā’ [2014] 33 (835) 21-27

[54] Parliament State Liability Act [2001] Article 16

[55] Parliament Law on Administrative procedure [2004] Article 85

[56] Council of Europe recommendation no. R (84) 15 to member states relating to public liability