The amount of a fine for the late filing of a quarterly report by a natural or legal person whose economic activity involves emptying septic tanks and transporting liquid waste SK 66/21
On 20 December 2022, the Constitutional Tribunal considered Mr D.M.’s constitutional complaint concerning the amount of a fine for the late filing of a quarterly report by a natural or legal person whose economic activity involves emptying septic tanks and transporting liquid waste.
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 9xb(2), Article 9zc(1) as well as Article 9zf of the Act of 13 September 1996 on the maintenance of cleanliness and order in communes (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2022, item 2519; hereinafter: the said Act), in the version that was binding from 1 January 2016 until 8 August 2022 – insofar as they require that a competent local self-government authority impose an administrative fine in a fixed amount for the late filing of the report referred to in Article 9o of the said Act, regardless of the reasons for the late filing – are inconsistent with Article 20, Article 22, and Article 64(1) and (3) in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
Moreover, the Tribunal decided to discontinue the proceedings as to the remainder.
The ruling was unanimous.
The challenged provisions set forth the mechanism for fining natural or legal persons whose economic activity involves emptying septic tanks and/or settling tanks in domestic sewage treatment plants, and transporting liquid waste, for the late filing of a quarterly report concerning liquid waste. The said mechanism provides for the fine of PLN 100 imposed for each day of delay for a period no longer than 365 days.
In the complainant’s case, public administration authorities, and subsequently administrative courts, assumed that there were no possibilities of either lowering the imposed administrative fine or refraining from the imposition thereof. According to the Tribunal, the absolute obligation of a local self-government authority to impose an administrative fine for the administrative tort consisting in the late filing of a report on liquid waste constitutes the state’s interference with the freedom to conduct economic activity as an element of the freedom of economic activity and with the right of ownership.
The constitutional value with relation to which the legislator had introduced the challenged provisions into the said Act is the protection of the natural environment. In Article 31(3), first sentence, of the Constitution, the natural environment is clearly mentioned as a value which may justify statutory limitations to the exercise of constitutional rights, including the freedom of economic activity and the right of ownership. The said limitations – apart from being imposed by statute and serving the protection of the natural environment – must also meet the requirements arising from the principle of proportionality.
The Tribunal held that the challenged provisions of the said Act fail to meet the requirement of proportionality, since they provide for the absolute obligation to impose an administrative fine in a fixed amount, regardless of the reasons for the late filing of the said report on liquid waste. What was also of relevance for such assessment of the challenged provisions was the amount of the aforementioned administrative fine, as in certain circumstances the said amount of the fine may render the sanction disproportionate in comparison with the damage to the natural environment resulting from the late filing of the report on liquid waste.
The challenged provisions fail to take account of the specific circumstances of situations in which the aforementioned report was filed late. The authority that is competent to determine the amount of the fine for the late filing of the report on liquid waste establishes the number of days of the delay and, on that basis, specifies the amount. In addition, fines for the late filing of reports on liquid waste may accumulate, when they pertain to different reporting periods. In certain cases, the obligation to pay the fine in the amount of tens of thousands or several hundred thousands of złotych (PLN) may financially ruin the perpetrator of the administrative tort, forcing the natural or legal person in question to stop conducting economic activity, and may deprive the said person of the right of ownership.
The adjudicating bench in the case was composed of: Judge Jarosław Wyrembak – Presiding Judge; Judge Zbigniew Jędrzejewski; Judge Justyn Piskorski; Judge Piotr Pszczółkowski; Judge Andrzej Zielonacki – Judge Rapporteur.