Search

Filter results

  • Years
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • 2
  • 4
  • More
  • Stages of the proceedings
  • 16
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 16
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 13
  • 3
  • More
Results: 16
Print
Case No 2019-11-01
On Compliance of Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mihails Kondakovs
12.03.2020.

16.03.2020.

On Compliance of Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Refusal to initiate Cassation proceedings in Civil Proceedings in property disputes under 2000 euros

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2018-09-0103
On Compliance of the Eighth Part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation” with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
14.12.2018.

18.12.2018.

On Compliance of the Eighth Part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation” with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Storage of seized goods

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the eighth part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, in the wording that was in force until 4 July 2018, and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation , insofar the obligation was derived from them for a person, who had been made administratively liable, to cover the expenditures of storing the property removed in the case of administrative violation until the moment when the decision of making this person administratively liable became enforceable, as being compatible with Article 105 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2018-06-0103
On Compliance of Section 12 (1) of the Law “On State Social Allowances” and Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work “ with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
12.12.2018.

-

On Compliance of Section 12 (1) of the Law “On State Social Allowances” and Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work “ with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Transportation benefits for persons with disabilities

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 12 (1) of the law “On State Social Allowance” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme;

to recognise Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work”, insofar it does not envisage the granting of the transport mobility to a disabled person with restricted mobility, who has mental health disorders, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date of its adoption.

Case No 2018-04-01
On Compliance of Section 7 (3) of the Law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it does no Provide for Cessation of the Duty to Pay Additional Immovable Property Tax Rate for Agricultural Land that is not being Farmed, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
18.10.2018.

22.10.2018.

On Compliance of Section 7 (3) of the Law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it does no Provide for Cessation of the Duty to Pay Additional Immovable Property Tax Rate for Agricultural Land that is not being Farmed, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 7 (3) of the law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it did no provide for cessation of the duty to pay additional immovable property tax rate for agricultural land that was not being farmed as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2017-30-01
On Compliance of Section 26 (1), the First Sentence of Para 12 of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they Set the Obligation to Indicate in the Statement of Claim the Declared Place of Residence of the Defendant, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
11.10.2018.

15.10.2018.

On Compliance of Section 26 (1), the First Sentence of Para 12 of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they Set the Obligation to Indicate in the Statement of Claim the Declared Place of Residence of the Defendant, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 26 (1), the first sentence of Para 12of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they set the obligation to indicate in the statement of claim the declared place of residence of the defendant as being compatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2017-21-01
On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Adjudicated
Svetlana Blohina
06.06.2018.

07.06.2018.

On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case short name: The Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance (Subrogation Claim)

The Constitutional Court held :

to recognise Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 November 2007 to 15 December 2017) as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to persons, to whom it has been applied in court or should be applied in court in legal proceedings that already have been initiated, becomes invalid as of the moment when the infringement upon the fundamental rights of these persons occurred..

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.

2017-21-01_Neimanis
Case No 2017-18-01
On compliance of Section 7(2) and Section 8(4) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and on compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 91, 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
26.04.2018.

27.04.2018.

On compliance of Section 7(2) and Section 8(4) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and on compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 91, 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Churches

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 7 (2) of the Law on Religious Organisations, insofar it does not envisage to the congregations, which are commencing their activities in the Republic of Latvia and are not affiliated with the religious associations (churches) that are already registered in the state, the right to establish a religious organisation (church) before the re-registration term of ten years has expired, as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. To recognise Section 7 (3) and Section 8 (4) of the Law on Religious Organisations as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.

Case No 2017-15-01
On Compliance of Section 531 (7) of Medical Treatment Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
15.05.2018.

16.05.2018.

On Compliance of Section 531 (7) of Medical Treatment Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Doctors' Overtime Work

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 31 of the Transitional Provisions of Medical Treatment Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2019.

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.

Case No 2017-07-01
On compliance of Section 50(1) of the Education Law, insofar it denies the persons who have been punished for serious or particularly serious offences the right to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher, with Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia
Adjudicated
Raivis Veinbergs
24.11.2017.

27.11.2017.

On compliance of Section 50(1) of the Education Law, insofar it denies the persons who have been punished for serious or particularly serious offences the right to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher, with Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia

Case short name: Teachers and Persons Punished for Severe Crimes

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 1 of Section 50 of Education Law, insofar as it denies a person, who has been punished for serious or particularly serious crimes, to work as a teacher, as being incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 June 2018.

The judgement is final and not subject to appeal. The judgement shall enter into force on the day of its publication.

Case No 2017-03-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Andrejs Elksniņš, Jānis Urbanovičs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Agešins, Ivars Zariņš, Ivans Ribakovs, Zenta Tretjaka, Ņikita Ņikiforovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Sergejs Potapkins, Jānis Tutins, Raimonds Rubiks, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Igors Pimenovs, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Igors Zujevs, Sergejs Mirskis, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Artūrs Rubiks un Ivans Klementjevs
21.12.2017.

27.12.2017.

On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Teachers' Loyalty

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the fourth and the sixth part of Section 30, the fifth and the sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the first part of Section 51 of Education Law as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.

Case No 2016-07-01
On Compliance of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
AS DNB Banka
08.03.2017.

10.03.2017.

On Compliance of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Bona fide Acquirers

The Constitutional Court held :

1. To recognise Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 356(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2016-06-01
On compliance of the fifth part of Section 11 and the third and fourth part of Section 13 of the law “On Official Secrets” with the first sentence of Article 92, Article 96 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Raimonds Lazdiņš
10.02.2017.

13.02.2017.

On compliance of the fifth part of Section 11 and the third and fourth part of Section 13 of the law “On Official Secrets” with the first sentence of Article 92, Article 96 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Official Secrets

The Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the part regarding compliance of Section 11 (5) and Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)of the law “On Official Secrets”with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Section 11 (5) and Section 13 (3) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar these norms with respect to annulment of a special permit provide that the Prosecutor’s General decisions is final and not subject to appeal, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018;
3) to recognise the second sentence of Section 13(4) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar it provides that following adoption of the final decision on annulment of a special permit a person must be transferred immediately to a job that is not related to official secrets or legal employment (service) relations with him must be terminated,as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
4) to recognise words“and henceforth he or she shall be denied receipt of a special permit” in the second sentence of Section 13 (4) of the law “On Official Secrets”as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018.

The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.

Case No 2015-18-01
On Compliance of Section 5.1 of "Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law" with Article 96 of the Republic of Satversme
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
16.07.2016.

20.06.2016.

On Compliance of Section 5.1 of "Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law" with Article 96 of the Republic of Satversme

Case short name: The Debtors of Maintenance Payments

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 51 of “Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law” as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and invalid as of 1 February 2017.

The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.

Case No 2015-14-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 6 of Section 1, Section 4, Section 10, Section 18(1) of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database, as well as Para 2 and Para 13 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 23 August 2005 No. 620 "The Procedure of Providing Information to be Included in the National DNA Database, as well as the Procedure for Collecting Biological Material and Biological Trace", Insofar as These Apply to Persons Suspected, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Lato Lapsa
12.05.2016.

13.05.2016.

On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 6 of Section 1, Section 4, Section 10, Section 18(1) of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database, as well as Para 2 and Para 13 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 23 August 2005 No. 620 "The Procedure of Providing Information to be Included in the National DNA Database, as well as the Procedure for Collecting Biological Material and Biological Trace", Insofar as These Apply to Persons Suspected, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The DNA Database

The Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database and Para 13 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 23 August 2005 No. 620 “The Procedure of Providing Information to be Included in the National DNA Database, as well as the Procedure for Collecting Biological Material and Biological Trace”, insofar as these apply to persons suspected, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Para 6 of Section 1, Section 4, Section 10 of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database, as well as Para 2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 23 August 2005 No. 620 “The Procedure of Providing Information to be Included in the National DNA Database, as well as the Procedure for Collecting Biological Material and Biological Trace”, insofar as these apply to persons suspected, as being compatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) to recognise Section 18(1) of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database, , insofar as it applies to persons suspected, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2017.

Case No 2015-06-01
On Compliance of Section 11.6 (1) of Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments.
12.11.2015.

13.11.2015.

On Compliance of Section 11.6 (1) of Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Disciplinary Cases of Judges

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 116 (1) of the Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.

Case No 2015-01-01
On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 7 of Law on the National Flag of Latvia and Section 201.43 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Solvita Olsena
02.07.2015.

06.07.2015.

On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 7 of Law on the National Flag of Latvia and Section 201.43 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Flags

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise the first and the second part of Section 7 of Law on the National Flag of Latvia as being compatible with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 20143 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar it established penalty for failure to place the Latvian national flag on residential buildings owned by private persons in accordance with the first and the second part of Section 7 of Law on the National Flag of Latvia, as being incompatible with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.