Supreme Court rejects agency's appeal over demolition of heritage-listed building in Jūrmala

Latvia's Supreme Court (AT) has refused to open cassation proceedings on an appeal filed by the National Heritage Board concerning the demolition of a culturally valuable residential building located within a Jūrmala urban planning heritage site — a historic cottage district.

The property owner had applied to Jūrmala City Council for permission to demolish the house on his property and submitted explanatory documents to the building authority regarding the demolition and construction of a summer house in its place. The building authority refused, since the house had been designated as culturally valuable and subject to preservation. Demolition of such a building also required approval from the National Heritage Board, which likewise refused to approve the demolition or the new construction.

Regional court's findings

The owner challenged both decisions in administrative court. The Administrative Regional Court found that the building authority had no grounds to block the demolition, since the restriction on the owner's property rights was disproportionate and had not been established through a properly adopted legal norm. The court ordered the explanatory document on the summer house construction plans to be reviewed again. It also found the council's refusal to reassess the building's cultural-historical value level unjustified, and noted that the Heritage Board had unlawfully based its decision on legal provisions governing cultural monuments, even though the building itself had not been designated as such a monument.

Supreme Court's ruling

The Heritage Board filed a full cassation appeal against the regional court's ruling. The Supreme Court noted that an authority's right to appeal a given claim's outcome depends on whether that claim falls within its designated competence. It also pointed out that the legal framework changed during proceedings: the urban planning heritage site containing the owner's property had its status downgraded from national to local significance, meaning the Heritage Board's approval for demolishing the house and placing a summer house is no longer required, as the matter now falls solely under municipal competence.

The Supreme Court concluded the Heritage Board had no right to appeal the part of the ruling concerning acceptance of the explanatory document and the lawfulness of the council's letter. Regarding the part finding the Board's refusal unlawful, the court found the cassation appeal lacked sufficient legal grounds, so cassation proceedings were not opened in that part either.