Nataļja Puriņa, counsel at our Latvian office, helped a client achieve a favourable outcome in a case against a local municipality regarding the determination of the obligation to cover a parent’s nursing home expenses.
The Administrative District Court declared the administrative act issued by the local government invalid as of the date of its issuance, applying a procedure that is relatively rare in practice – granting the petition without examining the case on its merits. The court found, even at the initial stage, that the local municipality’s actions were clearly unlawful.
The municipality’s initial position
The local government had required the client to cover part of the parent’s living expenses without assessing the objections regarding the validity of the calculation and ignoring a significant circumstance – the parent had not properly fulfilled his/her obligations toward the child. At the same time, the issue of whether a duty of support existed was addressed in administrative proceedings, even though it is a matter of civil law.
Court decision and reasoning
After reviewing the facts of the case, the court concluded that the local municipality’s decision was unlawful and had been made beyond the authority of the institution:
- a local government cannot use an administrative act to regulate civil law relationships in a binding manner, including matters concerning payment for social services;
- the authority had exceeded its powers (ultra vires) by imposing a payment obligation in a matter that did not fall within its jurisdiction;
- the duty of support is not absolute – a child may be exempted from it if the parents themselves have not properly fulfilled their obligations;
- disputes regarding the existence or extent of a maintenance obligation must be resolved in a court of general jurisdiction, rather than through an administrative decision.
“This case underscores how important it is to respect the boundaries between administrative proceedings and civil law. Local government decisions may not substitute for a court’s assessment in matters that are, in essence, civil in nature. The customer’s rights were fully protected,” emphasises Nataļja Puriņa.
