The Constitutional status of Human Dignity: Case-Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
Aldis Laviņš
President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
XIX Yerevan International Conference
“The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity”
Yerevan, Armenia on 22-23 October. 2014
[1] The concept “human dignity” has a long history. The concept has been analysed and examined both by philosophers and theologians – each from their own vantage point. Initially it was a philosophical concept. It was introduced into the legal science comparatively recently – in the mid-20th century[1].
When discussing “human dignity”[2], it is important to known the history of the origins of this concept, the attitude taken towards it by various religions, the views about it held by different philosophers. When looking at this concept as a judge’s working tool, it is important to understand and determine its legal content.
[2] At this moment I use the term “concept” with regard to human dignity, because later on I’ll also discuss, whether human dignity in Latvia’s legal system is considered to be a right, a value or a principle.
To disclose the constitutional status of human dignity, I’ll:
1) examine the evolution of this concept during the period of existence of Latvian Constitution;
2) point to the case-law of the Constitutional Court in applying this concept;
3) characterise the content of human dignity and factors that influence and form it.
[3] Different theories of human dignity exist, but there is a consensus that it is built upon the idea that all human beings have equal value, given by nature (inborn), irrespectively of one’s abilities or potential. There is an opinion that human dignity is closely linked to all human rights, i.e., that the all rights depend upon it, human dignity is the source of all human rights; all human rights have the so called “dignity-core”[3].
There are differences in opinion and, hence, also discussions with regard to:
1) whether the concept of human dignity has a uniform definition, or whether it has different meanings;
2) whether human dignity is a right, a principle or a value, or all of it;
3) whether it is an absolute right, or it can be restricted;
4) whether human dignity can be evaluated and also balanced against other rights, principles or values;
5) whether human dignity can be waived.
The enumerated diverging opinions prove that in each country the content of human dignity is formed not only by the norms of the Constitution, its structure, case-law, but also elements, which reflect the history, culture and human experience of the particular society[4] – the experience, which makes members of a particular society perceive human dignity in a specific way and not otherwise.
Evolving of the concept of human dignity in the period of existence of Latvia’s Constitution.
[4] I am proud to remind once again that Latvia has one of the oldest Constitutions in Europe. Satversme (hereinafter – the Constitution) was adopted in 1922. It was reinstated after the independence of the Republic of Latvia was restored.
[4.1] Until 1998, when the chapter on fundamental human rights was added to the Constitution, Latvia’s Constitution, in difference to the basic laws of other countries, which were elaborated in the second part of the 20th century, did not contain a direct reference to human dignity.
Fundamental rights were regulated by other means. In 1991 the constitutional law of the Republic of Latvia “The Rights and Obligations of a Citizen and a Person” was adopted. Human dignity (as well as human life, liberty) in this law was defined as the highest fundamental value of the Latvian State[5], it envisaged protecting human dignity and expressly prohibited such treatment of persons that degraded human dignity. The aforementioned constitutional law also provided that human dignity [alongside a person’s rights, health and morals, as well as state security, public order and peace] as the legitimate aim for restricting human rights and freedoms. Thus, after the independence of the Republic of Latvia was restored until 1998, when the aforementioned constitutional law became invalid, human dignity was declared in the constitutional law as a right and as the highest fundamental value of the State, and also – as a justification for restriction of rights.
[4.2] In 1998 the Chapter “Fundamental Human Rights” was added to the Constitution of Latvia. Article 95 of the Constitution provides: “The State shall protect human honour and dignity. Torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited. No one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment.”
Thus, the Constitution envisages human dignity as a right, moreover, defining the obligation of the State to protect it and to avoid actions, which could be classified as treatment that degrades human dignity. Whereas Article 116 envisages legitimate aims, the implementation of which permits placing restrictions upon rights. The protection of the rights of other persons is one among these. Thus, even though it is not indicated directly, the protection of human dignity as one of the human rights expressly envisaged in the Constitution may serve as the legitimate aim for restricting rights.
The Constitutional Court has noted that “the legislator, by adding to the Constitution a Chapter on fundamental human rights, has also established within the State a system of values, which recognises the protection of human dignity and liberty as the highest aim of all rights. It follows from the provisions of Article 89 of the Constitution – that “the State shall recognise and protect fundamental rights” – that fundamental human rights are binding upon the State power in all forms of their manifestation”[6].
Thus, since 1998 the concept of human dignity has had an important place in the Constitution: it has been enshrined both as a right, and as a standard for measuring restrictions upon rights, and also as the aim of all rights.
[5] On 19 June of this year the parliament adopted amendments to the Constitution, which came into force in 22 July. Through these amendments the Constitution was supplemented with a new introduction (Preamble). As the members of the parliament noted, the Preamble contains a summary of the constitutional values and the constitutional foundation of the State of Latvia”[7].
The fourth paragraph of the Preamble envisages that “Latvia as a democratic State, based on the rule of law, and as socially responsible and national State is founded upon respect for human dignity and freedom [..].” Whereas with regard to the note included in the Preamble that “Latvia’s identity in the European cultural space is shaped by Latvian and Liv traditions, Latvian historical life experiences, the Latvian language, universal human and Christian values”, Zbigņevs Stankēvičs, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, has noted: “The Preamble of the Constitution names these three foundations of Latvia’s culture that supplement one another: Christianity, Latvian historical life experiences and universal human values. It is an excellent platform of values for the unity of Latvia” and has concluded that the Christian, universal human and Latvian values do not contradict one another[8]. They form the set of moral values, which could be named human dignity[9].
This confirms that the Preamble defines human dignity as a constitutional value[10].
The case-law of the Constitutional Court with regard to human dignity
[6] As Aharon Barak has noted, the value and the content of human dignity[11] is influenced not only by the text of the Constitution, but also by the society[12], which uses and applies this concept.
A judge of the Constitutional Court must take into consideration the public attitude towards human dignity and the meaning of this concept in the particular society. This can cause a situation, where the case-law pertaining to human dignity in different countries may differ not only as to the content, but also as to the scope. This, perhaps, explains why the Constitutional Court in Latvia has examined comparatively few cases regarding human dignity, because the Court does not initiate cases upon its own initiative, it depends upon applications submitted by persons.
In connection with the norm of the Constitution, which envisages protection of human dignity:
1) in 2014 [until this moment] only 6 applications have been submitted[13], not a single case has been initiated;
2) from 2010 to 2013, 36 applications were submitted[14], one case initiated.
3) In general, in the history of the Constitutional Court, only four cases have been initiated having regard to Article 95 of the Constitution. Moreover, judgements have been made only in three cases[15], since the legal proceedings in one case were terminated[16].
[7] In Latvia human dignity as right or a principle, which had been violated, has not been the grounds for revoking a norm. The Constitutional Court in its rulings has predominantly referred to human dignity in interpreting other norms of the Constitution.
[7.1] For example, in a case regarding the possibility to appeal against a fine imposed for violations of procedural norms (failure to arrive for a court sitting)[17], the Constitutional Court[18] has referred to human dignity by interpreting the right to a fair court, and has noted “that human dignity requires that the individual should not be only an object of the proceedings, he or she should be given the possibility to speak, before a decision that affects his or her rights is adopted.” The Court has noted – “the right to a fair court finds its manifestation in human dignity. Thus the right to a fair procedure must be respected irrespectively of the fact, whether this respecting in general could influence the substantive aspect of the decision.”
In connection with the right to a fair court the Constitutional Court, referring to the need to protect human dignity and the rule of law, has noted that some procedural rights deserve a particularly strict protection, i.e., the right to the equality of parties, independence of court and the possibility to be heard, as well as the right to an unbiased court should not be restricted[19].
[7.2] The issue of human dignity is linked to the rights of detained persons:
In a case, in which the Internal Regulation of the pre-trial prisons was contested, the Constitutional Court noted that “placement in isolation punishment cell per se does not envisage cruel punishment or a punishment degrading human dignity, however, the State must ensure in places of deprivation of liberty such circumstances that do not degrade human dignity”[20].
The Court, examining the issue of employment in places of deprivation of liberty and the rights of prison inmates to receive adequate remuneration for work, noted that work was “an integral part of the source of human selfrespect and self-expression in a democratic society, which is based upon the fundamental principles of market economy. By investing one’s knowledge, competence and abilities in work, a person can lead a fulfilled life in contemporary society. By working in a paid employment, a person gains the financial resources necessary for satisfying his or her physiological, social and cultural needs[21]“.
[7.3] In the case regarding age limits set to professors of institutions of higher education (up to 65 years), the Court recognised that the assumption on automatic decrease of a person’s mental abilities with age was unsubstantiated since it “would be incompatible with philosophical notions of human dignity”[22]. Thus, the Court assessed the element of human dignity in the right envisaged in the Constitution to freely choose one’s vocation in conformity with one’s abilities and qualification[23].
[7.4] The issue of human dignity has been examined in connection with restrictions upon the freedom of speech[24], noting that “the private aspect of the freedom of speech means that each person has the right to hold his or her opinion, to adhere to it and to express it freely. The freedom of speech is one of the pre-requisites for developing a society, which is based upon mutual respect.”
[7.5] In examining issues of social security, which in some countries is a field derived from human dignity, the Constitutional Court, referring to human dignity (more specifically – to living conditions worthy of human dignity), speaks both about social justice and general welfare, as well as the creative development of a personality[25], and the need to ensure the possibility to participate in public, social and cultural life in the state[26].
In the cases pertaining to social security, the Court, referring to human dignity, has developed the doctrine regarding ensuring rights on the minimum level. It is based on the requirement to ensure, to the extent possible, existence worthy of a human being[27]. In a number of judgements the Court has emphasized the need to ensure social rights at least on the minimum level[28]. In the case of 2009 regarding decrease of pensions, the Court noted that a practice, when a hastily adopted law was made applicable to all pensioners, without analysing the consequences for various groups of persons that followed from the norm, was incompatible with the Constitution. The Court has explained, what the obligation of the State to ensure the minimum level of social security meant in the framework of the particular case. Namely, when restricting rights, the State must, in particular, protect those pensioners, who do not receive a pension equal to social security and who might need to request social assistance from the State. The Court noted in the judgement that “the State, to the extent possible, must ensure to all people a standard of living worthy of a human being and the possibility to actively engage in the public, social and cultural life of the state”[29].
[7.6] In a couple of cases the Court has pointed to the connection between human dignity and various rights, without analysing its impact or using it as an argument for reaching its finding[30]. In case regarding criminal liability for using drugs, private life is linked with dignity in this respect: “[..] the right to private life comprises most diverse range of an individual’s rights. It protects the physical and mental integrity of an individual, honour and dignity [..]”. Whereas in a case regarding benefits to disabled children, the Court particularly emphasized the protection of human dignity of persons with mental or physical disorders. In the case regarding the right of detained persons to meet their families, the Court noted that the right to inviolability of private life, guaranteed in Article 96 of the Constitution, included also the protection of honour and dignity. Likewise, in the case regarding correspondence between sentenced persons in the context of private life, it was noted that “one of the fundamental needs in human life is the need of such social relationships that are based upon understanding and respect. Communication in writing is recognised as one of the ways for establishing and maintaining social relationships”.
The content of human dignity and factors that influence and form it.
[8] The constitutional status of human dignity influences its content and its application in a particular case, whereas the content of the concept influences its constitutional status. Before discussing the application of the concept, simultaneously examining human dignity as a right, a principle and a value, some insights linked with the content of the concept should be outlined.
[8.1] Dignity functions as a complimentary right. All fields, which in the Constitution are covered by a right, in fact, are supplemented by the protection envisaged by the right to human dignity. Thus, dignity contains also certain standards of protection with regard to other rights envisaged in the Constitution[31].
[8.2] Human dignity forms the foundation for all human rights, and human rights, in their turn, help to understand the meaning and content of dignity.
[8.3] There is an opinion that the concept of human dignity acquires a concrete form and content only when interpreted and implemented in various fundamental rights being used as a tool for assessment and interpretation[32]. Thus, the content of human dignity becomes manifest in the application of this concept[33].
Does the Constitutional Court in Latvia apply the concept of human dignity as a right, a principle or refers to it as a constitutional value?
[9] There is an opinion that human dignity as a constitutional value and principle should be distinguished from dignity as a right[34].
[9.1] When discussing human dignity as a right, the status of this right should be taken into consideration. In many countries it functions as an absolute right, for example, in Germany, where its special status is defined in the text of the Basic Law of Germany, restrictions with regard to introducing amendments to the constitution, as well as direct instructions in the text of the Basic Law to the State and institutions with regard to ensuring human dignity[35]. There are countries, where, similarly to Latvia, the Constitution does not expressly envisage the absolute nature of this right. Special requirements and restrictions to the State and other persons in connection with this right follow from the whole text of the Constitution and its interpretation. In part, the special status of this right is determined by the special place that human dignity, as the source of human rights, holds in the constitutional system.
[9.2] Human dignity as a principle and value is used both in interpreting constitutional norms and in assessing the constitutionality of restrictions to rights.
In many democratic states the constitutional courts have derived the principle of human dignity from the norm in the Constitution that sets out that the state is a democratic republic[36]. Since a state governed by the rule of law is founded upon respect towards mankind and respect is an essential element in the principle of democracy[37], in Latvia the principle of human dignity is read into Article 1 of the Constitution, which envisages that Latvia is an independent and democratic republic. This has been noted by the Constitutional Court, which has emphasized that human dignity is one of the main principles that are developed from the legal term “democracy”[38].
Does the text of the Satversme (Constitution) comprise a direct reference to the special status of human dignity, which should be taken in consideration in applying it?
[10] The application of any concept (a right or a value) is influenced by the way it has been worded in the text of the Constitution. In difference to many European states, the Constitution of Latvia directly envisages neither the inalienability, nor inviolability of human dignity[39].
The obligation to apply legal norms in a way that would ensure human dignity follows from the Preamble to the Constitution. Whereas the direct obligation of the State to protect dignity and prohibition of treatment that would degrade human dignity or subjection to degrading punishment follows from Article 95 of the Constitution.
Is human dignity applied as an independent and autonomous right?
[11] There is a theory that human dignity is usually examined together with a certain right. It is very rarely examined alone, in some countries – never. One of the features characterising human dignity is that it functions as a tandem norm and a guideline for interpreting other norms. The case law of Latvia’s Constitutional Court confirms that there is no dispute in Latvia, whether human dignity is a human right, and in case it has been violated it is possible to turn to the constitutional court, and it should not mandatorily be examined in interconnection with another right. However, human dignity as a separate right has been applied very rarely, predominantly – together with other rights. It inspires interpretation and application of all other norms of the Constitution, filling the content of the particular right[40].
On the absolute nature of human dignity
[12] Germany is the most common example used in discussion on human dignity as an absolute right. The case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court shows that human dignity cannot be restricted – the proportionality of the restriction is not examined, it is sufficient to establish the restriction in order to recognise a norm or a situation as being incompatible with the Basic Law. The substantiation of this doctrine is found in the text of the Basic Law, restrictions with regard to introducing amendments to the constitution and the direct instructions included in the text of the Basic Law to the State and institutions with regard to ensuring human dignity.
[12.1] However, a rather valid position exists that, unless the Constitution comprises direct prohibition to restrict this right, it can still be restricted or balanced with other rights.
A person and human dignity are the highest values of the constitutional order[41]. It is based on the concept that human being as a spiritual and moral being has been granted the freedom to determine one’s place and to develop oneself. This freedom is not isolated and directed at an individual, but it is a right of a person, who is part of society. If this perspective is taken, this right cannot be absolute and unrestricted[42].
[12.2] The Constitutional Court of Latvia has made a general note that “the majority of fundamental rights defined in the Constitution are not absolute, and, in the presence of certain conditions, the State may restrict them”[43]. In 2010 the Court specified this insight, envisaging that no deviations were allowed from that part of Article 95 of the Constitution, which provides that “degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited”. Thus, the issue, whether the prohibition to place restrictions upon the right applies also to that part of the Article, which is worded as follows – “the State shall protect human honour and dignity”, has not been fully solved in case-law yet. Moreover, when dealing with this issue now, the text of the Preamble should also be taken into consideration.
Does the Constitution allow harmonising (balancing) human dignity with other [conflicting] rights or values?
[13] Rights can overlap, but can also collide. The Court has noted that the fundamental rights established in the Constitution form a balanced system and cannot be examined in isolation[44]. Thus, the fundamental rights guaranteed to particular persons require respecting also the fundamental rights granted to other persons. The principle of internal balance of the Constitution envisages that one constitutional value cannot be implemented by totally ignoring other constitutional values. Whereas the application of the principle of the unity of Constitution means that the particular issue is solved not by applying an individual constitutional norm, but the constitution as a united norm[45].
Since human dignity is a source of law, it overlaps with all other rights. However, cases where human dignity collides with another right are possible.
The case-law of the Constitutional Court in Latvia shows that it is possible to establish a balance between human dignity and other rights. In the case regarding establishing criminal liability for defamation of an official[46] the Constitutional Court harmonised the right to inviolability of dignity and honour and the right to freedom of speech. The Court noted in the judgement that “similarly to the right to freedom of speech, also the inviolability of human dignity and honour is enshrined both in the Constitution and in a number of international acts of human rights binding upon Latvia”.
The Court recognised that looking for a balance between human dignity and another right was admissible, emphasizing that in “defining the boundaries between the freedom of speech and the right to protection of honour and dignity, a fair balance must be ensured. [..] The protection of fundamental rights must be balanced in law, and, when expanding one fundamental right, it must be ensured that other fundamental rights were restricted in the least extent possible”[47].
[1] In positive state and international law the idea of protecting human dignity (even though forms differed) appeared, first of all, due to flourishing of human rights movement at the second half of the 20th century. The Universal Declaration of Human rights and two United Nations pacts on civic and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights in their Preambles referred to the dignity of every human being as the foundation of human rights, however, did not distinguish this dignity as a separate human right. European Convention on Human Rights does not refer directly to human dignity even though its Preamble contains a reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The judicature of the Court of Justice of European Communities on human rights holds that “human dignity and freedom is the very essence of the Convention”.
As regards constitutions of states – all of them in one way or another refer to human dignity.
[2] Human dignity is based upon the idea of recognising a human being as a free creature: a person, who develops and improves in accordance with his or her own wishes (will) in society, where he or she resides. The basic idea of human dignity is the sanctity of human life and freedom, autonomy of an individual’s will, a person’s freedom of choice, a person’s freedom of action as a free creature. Human dignity is based upon the recognition of the mental and physical integrity of a human being, humaneness, of a person as a value.
[3] Dignity-core creates the inviolable core of the right. It is based upon the doctrine of German Federal Constitutional Court.
[4] Literature is available reflecting also the religious and moral aspects; as well as political context, social values.
[5] Article 1 of the constitutional law of the Republic of Latvia “The Rights and Obligations of a Citizen and a Person”
[6] 6 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2002-04-03, Para 3 of the Findings
[7] 14th sitting of the winter session of the 11th Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on 27 March 2014. http://www.saeima.lv/lv/transcripts/view/233#LP1075_115
[8] Stankēvičs Z. Rietumeiropas morāles un kultūras kristīgais pamats. Grām.: Konstitucionālās tiesībpolitikas seminārs “Bīriņi 2014”. Semināra materiālu krājums. Bīriņi: Publisko tiesību institūts, 2014, 91. lpp.
[9] Commentary on the Satversme, unpublished material. Commentary on the Preamble.
[10] It is noted in the annotation to the draft law that “All actions of the State are based upon human dignity and freedom as the axioms of the philosophy of law of the State and human rights as the external framework for the State’s actions.”
[11] Aharon Barak. Human Dignity: Constitutional Value and Constitutional Right. Barak holds that a judge of a constitutional court, in interpreting norms must reflect society’s opinions on the value of human dignity.
“Under my approach to constitutional interpretation, however, the heaviest weight should be assigned to the understanding of human dignity within the society whose constitution I am interpreting. Every society will have a position on how it conceptualizes human dignity and what does it mean to be human. The constitutional judge must reflect the society’s deep concept of the value of human dignity.”
[12] An individual becomes a person in society. Without society the personhood of an individual is meaningless. (Rainer Ebert. Riginald M.J.Oduor. The Concept of Human Dignity in German and Kenyan Constitutional Law, 2012, p.62)
[13] 6 of 169 applications
[14] In 2010: 10 of 335, in 2011: 8 of 189, in 2012: 11 of 214, in 2013: 7 of 240.
[15] On one case, where the compatibility of a norm with the right to human dignity and the right to health care was contested, the norm was recognised as being anti-constitutional due to procedural violations (case No 2001-05-03), applicants – detained persons; regarding food). In Case No 2002-04-03 the compatibility with the right to human dignity and the right to health protection was contested. Incompatibility with other norms was established, therefore the issue of human dignity was not examined separately (there are some references to HD). In case No 2010-44-01 compatibility with the words in Article 95 “degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited” was examined.
[16] In some cases the applicant has made a reference to Article 95 of the Constitution (case No 2003-05-01 in connection with the freedom of speech; case No 2008-48-01 in connection with the right to health), to substantiate the violation of a right included in another Article. This is not binding upon the Constitutional Court, therefore in its rulings it has not always used the applicant’s approach to the examination of the norm.
[17] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2008-04-01, Para 11.
[18] Reference to the Judgement of 19 May 1992 by the German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 86, 133 and Judgement of 11 September 1963 by the Supreme Court of Switzerland , Zbl. 1964, S. 216
[19] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2004-10-01, Para 9.1.
[20] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2002-04-03, Para 5 of the Findings.
[21] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2006-31-01, Para 14.2.
[22] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2002-21-01 Para 3.2. of the Findings
[23] Article 106 of the Constituion.
[24] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2003-02-0106 , Para 1 of the Findings; Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2003-05-01, Para 24 (case regarding criminal liability for defamation of an official)
[25] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2006-10-03, Para 13.2 (case regarding limiting the maximum amount of child care benefit)
[26] Cases regarding decreasing pensions (case No 2009-43-01, case No 2009-88-01)
[27] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2000-08-0109
[28] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2010-29-01, Para 21 (case regarding decreasing early old-age pensions); Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2009-43-01, Para 31.2.
[29] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2009-43-01, Para 31.
[30] Rulings by the Constitutional Court in cases: (case No 2004-17-01, Para 10); (case No 2006- 08-01, Para 16.4); (case No 2008-42-01, Para 8 and 9); (case No 2009-10-01, Para 11).
[31] This was seen in all those cases heard by the Constitutional Court, where in connection with examination of a right a reference to human dignity is used or the right is examined in interconnection with human dignity (for example, issues of social security, ensuring the minimum level).
[32] Court of Justice of the EU, Findings by the Advocate General in Case C-36/02, 14.10.2014., Para 85.
[33] This is only a partial confirmation of the previous statement, as, actually, the concept of human dignity acquires content also through the concrete text of the Constitution. The content is specified by applying the concept.
[34] Aharon Barak. Human Dignity: Constitutional Value and Constitutional Right.
[35] Article 1 of the Basic Law: “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.”
[36] Venice Commission, CDL-STD(1998)026, Biruta Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska (Poland).
[37] Judgement by Constitutional Court of Slovenia, Case No. I-109/10 Para 6 and Para 10.
[38] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2008-40-01, Para 11 (regarding the Law on National Referendum; on certifying of signatures by notaries) “The main principles that have been developed from the legal notion “democracy” apply to participation of the society in public decision-making process, separation of public power and mutual supervision, as well as subjection of the public power to the law, dignity of a person and equality of persons, subjective rights of a person before the public power, principles of a law-governed state and social solidarity.”
[39] Article 30 of the Polish Constitution provides that dignity is inherent, inalienable, it is the source of rights and freedoms, it is inviolable. The institutions (State) have the obligation to respect and protect it.
[40] Venice Commission, CDL-STD(1998)026, Christian Walter
[41] Venice Commission, CDL-STD(1998)026, Christian Walter
[42] Venice Commission, CDL-STD(1998)026, Christian Walter
[43] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2004-15-0106, Para 21.
[44] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2004-18-0106, Para 10 of the Findings.
[45] None of the norms of the Satversme [Constitution] may be interpreted in isolation form other norms of the Satversme, since Satversme as a whole influences the scope and content of each particular norm.
[46] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2003-05-01
[47] Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in case No 2003-05-01.