Search

On Compliance of Paea 3.15, Para 3.16 and Para 3.17, as well as the Words in Annex II Para 2 "Skrīveri Parish", the Words "Brīvzemnieki Parish" in Para 5, the Words, "Bēne Parish" of Para 8, the Words "Baltinava Parish" of Para 12, the Words "Code Parish" "Gailīši Parish", "Īslīce Parish", "Mežotne Parish" and "Vecsaule Parish" of Para 13", the Words "Kauguri Parish" of Para 14, the Words "Amata Parish" and "Drabeši Parish" of Para 18, the Words "Lapmežciema Parish" of Para 25, the Words "Glūdas Parish", "Līvbērze Parish" and "Valgunde Parish" of Para 35", the Words "Alsunga Parish" of Para 42, the Words "Baložo Town" of Para 44, the Words "Jersika Parish" of Para 48, the Words "Priekuļi Parish" and "Rauna Parish" of Para 65, the Words "Maltas Parish of Para 66", 77.punkta the Words "Allaži Parish", "Inčukalns Parish", "More Parish", "Sigulda Parish" and "Sigulda Town" of Para 77, the Words "Ģibuļi Parish", "Lībagi Parish" and "Strazde Parish" of Para 82, the Words "Pūre Parish" of Para 84, the Words "Kocēni Parish" and "Vaidava Parish" of Para 87, and the Words "Ances Parish" and "Tārgale Parish" of Para 92 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First, the Third and the Fourth Part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform

On Compliance of the First and the Fourth Part of Section 458 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the first part of Section 458 of the Civil Procedure Law in conjunction with the fourth part thereof, which took effect on 25 June 2008 (insofar as these norms provided that a court or a judge shall decide on full or partial exemption of a person from security fee for a cassation complaint being submitted) does not complies with article 92 of the Satversme and invalid in relation to the Applicant as from 24 October 2007.

On Compliance of the Words and the Number “and Section 31” of Section 283 and Section 317 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of the Fifth Part of Para 3.2.8 and the First Part of Sub-para 3.10.6 of the Building Regulations of the Binding Regulations No. 6 “Spatial Planning of Laža Parish of Liepāja Region, 2007 – 2019” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Section 441(2) of Civil Procedure Law (Insofar it Concerns Decisions Regarding Imposition of a Fine in the Form of Procedural Sanction) with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Constitutional Court helds that the second part of Section 441 of the Civil Procedure Law (insofar as it concerns decisions regarding imposition of a fine as procedural sanction) complies with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation No. 67 of December 19, 2006 of the Riga City Council "Regulations of Use and Building of the Territory in Maskava Street 264 (Cadastre No. 01000780413) and Maskava Street without Number" with Para 1 of Section 3 of the Spatial Planning Law, Para 4 of Section 37(1) of Protection Zone Law and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the First and the third Sentence of the First Part and the First Sentence of the Sixth Part of Section 52 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the first and the third sentence of the first part of Section 52 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code regarding rest days and the first sentence of the sixth part of Section 52 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code do not comply with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as from May 1, 2009.

On Compliance of the Financial Assistance Quotas for Production of Biofuel 7813953 Litres – for the Farmers Co-operative “Latraps” (LV58503007191) and 3255814 Litres for the Joint-Stock Company “Baltic Holding Company” (LV40003558603) Established in Para 4 of the Regulation No. 312 of May 8, 2007 by the Cabinet of Ministers “Amendments to the Regulation No. 712 of September 13, 2005 by the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Procedure for Granting State Assistance for Production of the Necessary Minimum Amount of Biofuel and the Procedure for Setting the Financial Assistance Quotas According to the Types of Biofuel”” with the First Part of Section 8 of the Biofuel Law and Item 1 of the Fourth Part of Section 8 of the Law “On Excise Duties

Constitutional Court held:
1. Appendix II of the Regulation No. 712 of September 13, 2005 by the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Procedure for Granting State Assistance for Production of the Necessary Minimum Amount of Biofuel and the Procedure for Setting the Financial Assistance Quotas According to the Types of Biofuel” does not comply with the first part of Section 8 of the Biofuel Law.
2. Appendix III of the Regulation No. 280 of April 15, 2008 by the Cabinet of Ministers “Regulations Regarding Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel” does not comply with the first part of Article 8 of the Biofuel Law and is invalid as from November 1, 2008.

On Compliance of Section 434 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 1, 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Section 464 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2007-22-01

On Compliance of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of Criminal Procedure Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court helds that Para 3 of the Transitional Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 50 (2) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court helds that the second sentence of the second part of Section 50 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code, insofar as it does not provide to pay from the State budget for posting of submissions regarding the disputing of an administrative act or factual activities and requests for legal assistance for those prisoners who have no financial resources, does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and is invalid as from November 1, 2008.

On Compliance of the Words "not More than Once per Three Years" of Section 33.1 (1) of Law On Taxes and Fees (Wording of the Law of April 13, 2000) with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. In relation to the cases undergoing proceedings, the words “not more often than once per three years” of the first part of Section 33.1 of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” (wording of April 13, 2000) do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the date of passing thereof.
2. In relation to the cases undergoing proceedings, the words “not more often than once a year” of the first part of Section 33.1 of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” (wording of March 31, 2004) do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid form the date of passing thereof.

On Compliance of Sections 434 and 464 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 1, 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Article 434 of the Civil Procedure Law does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be ineffective from July 1, 2008.
2. Legal proceedings regarding compliance of the third part of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with Article 1, Article 82, Article 86 and Article 92 of the Satversme shall be terminated.

On Compliance of the Second Part of Section 7 of Law On Public Transport Services with Articles 2, 3 and the First, Third and Fourth Part of Article 4 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985

Constitutional Court held that proceedings in the case shall be terminated.

On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish” with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2007-17-05

On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government "On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council "Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property "Saulrīti", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish" with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2007-17-05

On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government "On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council "Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property "Ausmas", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property "Undīnes", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish" with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2007-17-05

On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/144 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 6 of June 13, 2003 of the Kolka Parish Council”, the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish”, the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Saulrīti”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” and the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Ausmas”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property “Undīnes”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” with Section 10 (1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Decree No. 2-02/144 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister of Regional Development and Local Government “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 6 of June 13, 2003 of the Kolka Parish Council”, the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish”, the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Saulrīti”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” and the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Ausmas”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property “Undīnes”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” comply with the First Part of Section 10 of the State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of the Part of the Amendments to Ikšķile Region Spatial Plan for 2006 – 2010 Providing for Building of Dwelling Houses in the Territory of Real Estate “Pēterkalni” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Part 2 of Section 7.1 of Law on State Social Allowances with Articles 91 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the second part of Section 7.1 of the Law on Allowances does not comply with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, as to Jolanta Kalniņa-Levina, as well as to other persons who have started protection of the violated rights by means of general means of rights protection, is invalid from January 1, 2006.