Search

On Compliance of Section 6 of Law Amendments to the Law on Personal Income Tax of 1 December 2009 (Provision Envisaging Deleting Para 3 of Section 9 (1) of Law On Personal Income Tax) and Para 13 of Section 8 (3) and Para 19 of Section 16.1 of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 6 of the Law “Amendments to the Law on Personal Income Tax” of 1 December 2009 (Provision Envisaging Crossing out of Section 9 (1) (3) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax”) does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Section 8 (3) (13) and Section 16.1 (9) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Combined case: 2009-111-01

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the first and the third part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-16-01

On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia, Insofar it Applies to Land under Residential Apartment Houses and Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to land under residential apartment houses and Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses” fails to comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance Section 4 (2) of Law On State Funded Pensions and Para 2, Sub-para 4 and Sub-para 5 of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions thereof with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 4 (2) of the Law on State Funded Pensions and Para 2 (3), (4) and (5) of Transitional Provisions thereof taken as a single regulatory framework does
comply with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions (in the Part Pertaining to Making Equivalent Periods of Work and the Equivalent Periods Thereof of Non-Citizens to Lengths of Period of Insurance) with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Para 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” (the part regulating making equivalent of the accrued work and the rquivalent period thereof for non-citizens of Latvia to length of period of insurance) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof.

On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-16-01

On Compliance of Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law with Article 1, Article 109 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law does comply with Article 1, Article 109, and Article 110 of the Satversme.

On Compliance of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Compliance of Section 14(7) of This Law, as Well as of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (in the Wording of the Law That Was Effective from 25 November 2004 to 16 June 2009) and Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 20 (9) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” (wording effective up to 1 July 2009) does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Section 20 (9) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. Section 14 (7) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
4. Section 6 (1) of the 16 June 2009 Law “Amendments to the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the First and the Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 141(1) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar as It Establishes the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision Satisfying an Application on Securing of a Claim, with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court held that taking into account the judgment of 30 March 2010 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2009-85-01, Section 141 Para 1 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it does not grant the right to submit an ancillary complaint in regard to a decision satisfying an application for the securing of a claim as null and void, in relation to the applicant “Yelverton Investment B.V.” as from the date of adoption thereof.

On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-08-01

On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 30 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Section 18(4) of Administrative Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Words "if These Transactions Have Not Been Declared in Accordance with the Procedure Established by the First Part of this Section, - in the Amount of 15 Per Cent of the Sum Total of These Transactions, Unless this Section provides Otherwise" of Section 30(2) of Law on Taxes and Fees (in the Wording of 4 December 1997) with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1) the words “the document itself or” of Section 396 (2) of the Civil procedure Law do not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia; therefore they shall be null and void as from 10 December 2010;
2) the words “or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market” of Section 396 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, the words “but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required” of Section 396 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law, the words “without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof” of Section 397 of the Civil Procedure Law, and words “or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market” of Section 397 (2) (1) of the Civil Procedure Law do comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the republic of Latvia.

"On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia "

Combined case: 2009-110-01

On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law on Budget and Financial Management, Section 44 (2) of Law on the State Audit Office and Section 19 (2) of Ombudsman Law with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 19 (5) of the Law on Budget and Financial Management, Section 44 (2) of the Law on the State Audit Office and Section 19 (2) of the Ombudsman Law in conjunction with Section 20 of the Law on Budget and Financial Management, insofar as it fails to establish the right of the Chancellery, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit office, and the Ombudsman Office to be heard by the Cabinet of Ministers regarding issues related with their budgetary requests, do not comply with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from 1 June 2011.