The Supreme Court of Latvia has ruled to annul the previous judgment regarding the issuance of a construction permit for a residential apartment established in the attic space of a building. This decision arises from a case where the applicant was involved in unauthorized construction but sought to legalize it by applying for a building permit. To do so, the applicant presented a construction plan that was met with resistance from one of the co-owners of the property, who had not granted authority for the management to sign the necessary documents.

The City Development Department of the Riga City Council denied the building permit, emphasizing that the construction plan was not coordinated with all co-owners, as one party had not consented to the power of attorney allowing the property manager to act on behalf of all co-owners. The matter escalated to courts where both the first instance and appellate courts turned down the applicant's appeals, reinforcing the City Development Department's stance.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the co-owner, who did not sign the authorization protocol yet waived objections to the apartment conversion in the attic as per the purchase agreement, could still be considered as giving consent for the construction endeavor. This ruling highlights the complexities of property rights and the importance of unanimous consent among co-owners in property development cases in Latvia.