Stankeviči family still waits on the fate of their only home

A case over the only home bought by the Stankeviči family has moved from one court to another for six years. The report says a fraudster sold them the property. In early October it became known that the case had been sent to the Constitutional Court, and within a few weeks it should be clearer whether, and how, the dispute over the purchase will continue.

Latvian Television reported that soon after the purchase in 2020 the family learned the property had been seized because the seller had sold the home without the owner's permission. A key detail is that the seller had been authorised to sell the property. The family went to court and initially won, but higher courts later ruled in favour of the original owner.

The litigation has already lasted six years. After amendments to the law, the family applied to the Supreme Court in July, so far without a result. The proceedings are suspended until the Constitutional Court speaks. The family is now considering looking for another place to live so they are no longer in constant uncertainty, fearing the apartment could have to be vacated at any moment. About 90,000 euros of credit on the property is still outstanding. Because it is their only home, the family has no possibility of taking on another mortgage.

Their lawyer, Jorens Jaunozols, said he respects the Supreme Court decision but does not agree with it. He also stressed that protection of a good-faith acquirer effectively does not work in the country. In his view, the Senate had a good chance to correct mistakes made so far by colleagues and did not use it in the proceedings. He said the next stage will look narrowly at whether a procedural question complies with the Constitution, which he hopes will simply prolong the process. He added that it still has to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will initiate the case at all, calling that the first step, and that if it does, the question will be how the court decides.

The Senate of the Supreme Court considers that changes to the law adopted urgently by the Saeima could conflict with the Constitution. The senators are concerned that people's right to a fair trial, and the principle that a court's final decision must be respected, could be put at risk. The Senate says a case that has already been decided may be reviewed only in special circumstances, for example if there was fraud in the court process or if new, previously unknown circumstances have emerged. In the Senate's view, a wish to help honest property buyers is not by itself a sufficient reason to endanger the original owner's rights and trust in court decisions.

Jaunozols described the situation as absurd. He said that if the matter had been heard in other proceedings, for example a civil case, the outcome would have been entirely different and the Stankeviči family would not have been involved at all. He said a violation of the Criminal Law was seen here, mistakenly in his view, because the case is not based on forged documents.

The head of the Saeima Legal Committee said he could not say why the court is acting as it is and refrained from commenting on the Senate decision. Andrejs Judins (JV), chairman of the committee, said the person who committed the criminal offence had a power of attorney to sell apartments, sold them to himself and then sold them on. In his view as a lawyer, the case should be about money that the person put in his own pocket and did not give to the apartment's owner, whereas the discussion has instead remained about the apartment. He said he hopes the Constitutional Court will be able to act and that the Supreme Court will then also be able to take a decision.

The Constitutional Court received the application on 9 October. Within a month the court must decide whether to initiate the case.