Search

Filter results

  • Years
  • 29
  • 38
  • 25
  • 35
  • 31
  • 25
  • 36
  • 21
  • 26
  • 21
  • 75
  • 117
  • 48
  • 26
  • 43
  • 25
  • 26
  • 23
  • 21
  • 17
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • More
  • Stages of the proceedings
  • 20
  • 8
  • 4
  • 443
  • 258
  • 1
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 337
  • 105
  • 210
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 375
  • 83
  • 64
  • 212
  • More
Results: 734
Case No 2020-29-01
On Compliance of Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
20.05.2020.
20.10.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-28-03
On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
tiesībsargs
15.05.2020.
15.10.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-27-01
On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Alfor" un "Admirāļu klubs"
12.05.2020.
12.10.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
In Preparation
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "OPTIBET”
08.05.2020.
08.10.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Case No 2020-25-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 od the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
In Preparation
Rīgas apgabaltiesa
07.05.2020.
07.10.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 od the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Case No 2020-24-01
On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to the Leasing of Land in Cases of Enforced Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Akciju sabiedrība “Pilsētas zemes dienests”
05.05.2020.
30.09.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to the Leasing of Land in Cases of Enforced Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-23-01
On compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Pāvels Volkovs
27.04.2020.
27.09.2020.
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-22-01
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību “Vecpilsētas celtnes un būves”
16.04.2020.
16.09.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-21-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 45 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Artjoms Zablockis
14.04.2020.
14.09.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 45 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-20-03
On Compliance of Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Joined
Vidzemes rajona tiesa
02.04.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

Case No 2020-19-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 of the First Part and the Second Part of Section 16 of the Law “On State Pensions” as well as Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
23.03.2020.
23.08.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of the First Part and the Second Part of Section 16 of the Law “On State Pensions” as well as Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-18-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 37 (4) of “Law on Governance of Capital Shares of a Public Person and Capital Companies” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Persona E
19.03.2020.
19.08.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 37 (4) of “Law on Governance of Capital Shares of a Public Person and Capital Companies” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-17-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Joined
Zemgales apgabaltiesa
19.03.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

Case No 2020-16-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Valērijs Agešins; Jānis Urbanovičs; Andrejs Klementjevs; Artūrs Rubiks; Nikolajs Kabanovs; Boriss Cilevičs; Regīna Ločmele Luņova; Edgars Kucins; Jānis Tutins; Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis; Sergejs Dolgopolovs; Jānis Krišāns; Inga Goldberga; Ivans Ribakovs; Ivans Klementjevs; Igors Pimenovs; Evija Papule; Ļubova Švecova; Vladimirs Nikonovs; Vitālijs Orlovs
17.03.2020.
17.08.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-15-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Joined
Kurzemes rajona tiesa
09.03.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

Case No 2020-14-01
On Compliance of Section 37 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Jurija Kapišņikova;Ināras Kapišņikovas;Eduarda Kapišņikova
09.03.2020.
09.08.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 37 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-13-01
On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Persona D
27.02.2020.
27.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-12-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Joined
Zemgales rajona tiesa; Vidzemes apgabaltiesa; Rīgas pilsētas Pārdaugavas tiesa
24.02.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

Case No 2020-11-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Rīgas rajona tiesa
07.02.2020.
07.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2020-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vidzemes apgabaltiesa
06.02.2020.
06.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2020-09-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Rīgas rajona tiesa
06.02.2020.
06.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2020-08-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Irina Kovalenko
03.02.2020.
03.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-07-03
On Compliance of Sub-para 2.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 December 2011 No. 924 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension”, Sub-para 2.1. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” (in the wording that was in force until 31 December 2019) as well as Para 2 and Sub-para 3.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Amount of the Minimal State Old-age Pension
In Preparation
Augstākā tiesa
22.01.2020.
22.06.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Sub-para 2.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 December 2011 No. 924 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension”, Sub-para 2.1. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” (in the wording that was in force until 31 December 2019) as well as Para 2 and Sub-para 3.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Amount of the Minimal State Old-age Pension

Case No 2020-06-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Rīgas pilsētas Pārdaugavas tiesa
16.01.2020.
16.06.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2020-05-01
On Compliance of Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not Envisage Repayment of the State Fee Paid of a Notice of Appeal if the Notice of Appeal is Dismissed, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Rīgas apgabaltiesa
15.01.2020.
15.06.2020.
21.05.2020.
18.06.2020.

-

On Compliance of Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not Envisage Repayment of the State Fee Paid of a Notice of Appeal if the Notice of Appeal is Dismissed, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2020-04-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Joined
Rīgas rajona tiesa
10.01.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).

Combined case: 2019-37-0103

Case No 2020-03-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Kurzemes rajona tiesa
10.01.2020.
10.06.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2020-02-0306
On Compliance of Sub-para 18.12. of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 May 2011 No. 378 “Procedures for Advertising Medicinal Products and Procedures by Which a Medicinal Product Manufacturer is Entitled to Give Free Samples of Medicinal Products to Physicians” with Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third Part of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
In Preparation
SIA “EUROAPTIEKA”
08.01.2020.
08.06.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Sub-para 18.12. of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 May 2011 No. 378 “Procedures for Advertising Medicinal Products and Procedures by Which a Medicinal Product Manufacturer is Entitled to Give Free Samples of Medicinal Products to Physicians” with Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third Part of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Case No 2020-01-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Jaunciema piekraste"
07.01.2020.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-38-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Akciju sabiedrība „Latzemes aktīvi”
17.12.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
In Preparation
Rīgas rajona tiesa
17.12.2019.
17.07.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Case No 2019-36-01
On Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Augstākā tiesa
17.12.2019.
18.05.2020.
30.04.2020.
10.06.2020.

-

On Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-35-01
On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Igors Lakatošs
17.12.2019.
17.05.2020.
21.05.2020.
27.08.2020.

-

On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-34-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, on Compliance of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016), as well as Compliance of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Joined
Rīgas apgabaltiesa
16.12.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, on Compliance of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016), as well as Compliance of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2019-33-01
On compliance of Section 155(1) of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Persona C
16.12.2019.
18.05.2020.
21.05.2020.
06.10.2020.

-

On compliance of Section 155(1) of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-32-01
On Compliance of Section 492 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Juris Krasovskis
13.12.2019.
13.05.2020.
21.05.2020.
20.08.2020.

-

On Compliance of Section 492 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-31-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA “Spilbridge & Partners”
09.12.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-30-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA “Enerģētiķis”
26.11.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-29-01
On compliance of the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, insofar these do not envisage annual increase of the State-allocated financing for studies in State-founded institutions of higher education in the amount no less than 0.25 per cent of the gross domestic product, as provided for in Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Evija Papule; Jānis Vucāns; Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis; Raimonds Bergmanis; Ļubova Švecova; Uldis Augulis; Aldis Gobzems; Gundars Daudze; Boriss Cilevičs; Viktors Valainis; Linda Liepiņa; Karina Sprūde; Didzis Šmits; Jūlija Stepaņenko; Ivans Ribakovs; Inga Goldberga; Regīna Ločmele-Luņova; Edgars Kucins; Nikolajs Kabanovs; Jānis Ādamsons; Vladimirs Nikonovs; Artūrs Rubiks; Ivars Zariņš; Ivans Klementjevs; Jānis Krišāns; Vitālijs Orlovs; Jānis Urbanovičs; Igors Pimenovs; Jānis Tutins; Sergejs Dolgopolovs un Valērijs Agešins
25.11.2019.
25.06.2020.
-
-

-

On compliance of the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, insofar these do not envisage annual increase of the State-allocated financing for studies in State-founded institutions of higher education in the amount no less than 0.25 per cent of the gross domestic product, as provided for in Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-28-0103
On Compliance of Decision No. 1/7 of 18 April 2019 by the Board of the Public Utilities Commission “Regulation on the Connection to the Natural Gas Transmission System for Biomethane Producers, Liquefied Natural Gas System Operators and Natural Gas Users” with Article 1, Article 64, Article 89 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as Section 45 (7) and Section 841 (1) of the Energy Law and the Compliance of Section 841(1) of the Energy Law with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Akciju sabiedrības "Latvijas Gāze"
22.11.2019.
22.06.2020.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Decision No. 1/7 of 18 April 2019 by the Board of the Public Utilities Commission “Regulation on the Connection to the Natural Gas Transmission System for Biomethane Producers, Liquefied Natural Gas System Operators and Natural Gas Users” with Article 1, Article 64, Article 89 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as Section 45 (7) and Section 841 (1) of the Energy Law and the Compliance of Section 841(1) of the Energy Law with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-27-03
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
19.11.2019.
19.04.2020.
30.04.2020.
02.06.2020.

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-26-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Akciju sabiedrības “Pilsētas zemes dienests”
14.11.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-25-03
On Compliance of the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
13.11.2019.
13.04.2020.
15.04.2020.
16.06.2020.

-

On Compliance of the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-24-03
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Adjudication
Tiesībsargs
21.10.2019.
21.03.2020.
24.03.2020.
19.05.2020.

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-23-01
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Adjudication
SIA “Spilbridge & Partners”
18.10.2019.
18.03.2020.
24.03.2020.
11.06.2020.

-

On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-22-01
On Compliance of Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 2 January 2004 to 31 March 2013, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Prepared
Aigars Meļko; Gunārs Cvetkovs
10.10.2019.
10.05.2020.
21.05.2020.
25.08.2020.

-

On Compliance of Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 2 January 2004 to 31 March 2013, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-21-01
On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Oskars Viļums
07.05.2020.

11.05.2020.

On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2019-21-01 “On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2019-20-03
On Compliance of Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” with Article 64, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Adjudication
Inna Djeri; Jeļena Djeri; Aļona Grigorjeva-Kuļinoka; Aļisa Kuļinoka; Nadežda Smirnova; Alisa Vaskova; Anna Soldatenko; Sergejs Zimins; Oļesja Zimina; Jūlija Sohina; Ratmirs Čubarovs; Elizabete Krivcova; Arsenijs Ivanovs; Nikita Ivanovs
25.09.2019.
25.02.2020.
19.03.2020.
21.05.2020.

-

On Compliance of Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” with Article 64, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2019-19-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Joined
Augstākā tiesa
24.09.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)

Combined case: 2019-10-0103

Case No 2019-18-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jānis Pīlāts
19.09.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-17-05
On Compliance of the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self Government
Adjudicated
Ikšķiles novada dome
15.05.2020.

19.05.2020.

On Compliance of the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self Government

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-16-01
On compliance of Section 464(41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību „Aģentūra FREYJA”
07.08.2019.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 464(41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2019-13-01

Case No 2019-15-01
On compliance of the third sentence of Section 564(7) and Section 570(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
Adjudicated
Jānis Loze
26.03.2020.

27.03.2020.

On compliance of the third sentence of Section 564(7) and Section 570(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognises the third sentence of Section 564 (7) and Section 570 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-14-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Uģis Lapiņš
17.03.2020.

-

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sandra Pīlāte
12.03.2020.

16.03.2020.

On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it applied to the decision on the refusal to initiate cassation legal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-12-01
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Adjudication
Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Ivans Ribakovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Igors Pimenovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Edgars Kucins, Ivans Klementjevs, Inga Goldberga, Evija Papule, Jānis Krišāns, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ļubova Švecova, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Regīna Ločmele Luņova un Ivars Zariņš
18.07.2019.
18.02.2020.
25.02.2020.
23.04.2020.

-

On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

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

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 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aleksejs Petrovs
20.03.2020.

24.03.2020.

On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to recognise Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force from 4 July 2008 until 7 March 2016) as being compatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme;

2) to recognise Para 56, Para 58 and Para 87 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme with respect to persons, to whom these norms had been applied or should be applied in court, as of the date of their adoption.

Case No 2019-09-03
On Compliance of Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
AS “PNB Banka”
20.02.2020.

24.02.2020.

On Compliance of Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Funding of the activities of the Financial and capital market commission

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-08-01
On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Juris Jurašs
23.12.2019.

27.12.2019.

On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Removal of a Member of the Parliament after consent for criminal prosecution

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding the compliance of the second sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the second and the third sentence of Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. To recognise the first sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the first sentence of Article 19 as being incompatible with Article 5, the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to Juris Jurašs, void as of 31 January 2019.

Case No 2019-07-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "ExpressCredit"
25.04.2019.
25.09.2019.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Total costs of consumer credit

Combined case: 2019-05-01

Case No 2019-06-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Davids Džibuti un Dana Džibuti
08.04.2019.
08.09.2019.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2018-22-01

Case No 2019-05-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību “ONDO”
12.02.2020.

14.02.2020.

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Total costs of consumer credit

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 8 (23) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-04-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Timurs Jareško, Mila Šteina, Edvards Šmits, Aleksandrs Fominovs, Vladislavs Kuļikovs, Vlada Elīza Ševšeļova, Jeļizaveta Kotova, Anna Lisa Čmihova, Agnija Busila, Marija Busila, Mihails Zaslavskis un Aleksandrs Zaslavskis
04.03.2019.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Language of education IV

Combined case: 2018-22-01

Case No 2019-03-01
A case initiated with respect to restrictions on combining the offices of a local government’s councillor
Adjudicated
Aivars Damroze
17.12.2019.

19.12.2019.

A case initiated with respect to restrictions on combining the offices of a local government’s councillor

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 4 of Section 38 (2) of the law “On Local Governments” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2019-02-03
A case initiated with respect to the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
12.12.2019.

16.12.2019.

A case initiated with respect to the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science

Case short name: Experts of Latvian Council of Science

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2019-01-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law provides that the adopter may not be a person, who has been punished for criminal offences related to violence of threatening of violence, regardless of extinguishing of the criminal record or removal thereof.
Adjudicated
Augstākā tiesa
05.12.2019.

06.12.2019.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law provides that the adopter may not be a person, who has been punished for criminal offences related to violence of threatening of violence, regardless of extinguishing of the criminal record or removal thereof.

Case short name: Adoption ban

The Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) with respect to persons, who have started defending their rights by general legal remedies, to recongise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when it was applied to these persons by the Orphan’s Court.

Case No 2018-25-01
On Compliance of Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter – the Code) establishes the regime for serving the sentence in closed prisons, inter alia, that men, who have been sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for committing a serious or a particularly serious crime, serve the sentence in a closed prison.
Adjudicated
Andris Otto
07.11.2019.

11.11.2019.

On Compliance of Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter – the Code) establishes the regime for serving the sentence in closed prisons, inter alia, that men, who have been sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for committing a serious or a particularly serious crime, serve the sentence in a closed prison.

Case short name: Regime of penalty execution for men

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar the differential treatment of convicted men established in it lacks objective and reasonable grounds, as being incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.

Case No 2018-24-01
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”
Adjudicated
Augstākā tiesa
28.06.2019.

02.07.2019.

On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”

Case short name: Surveillance of the correspondence of the detainees

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 28 (2) of the law “On the Procedure for Holding under Arrest”, in the wording that was in force until 2 January 2018, insofar it envisages control of correspondence for the whole duration of arrest without an individual assessment of circumstances and without an identified threat to other persons’ rights or public security, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme and with respect to persons, to whom this norm had been applied and who have begun defending their rights in the framework of an administrative procedure but with respect to whom the administrative proceedings have not been concluded yet, as void as of the moment when the infringement on the rights of these persons occurred.

Case No 2018-23-03
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ansis Ataols Bērziņš
24.10.2019.

-

On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Items allowed in the detention facilities

Case No 2018-22-01
On Compliance of Section 1(1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Davids Džibuti un Dana Džibuti
13.11.2019.

15.11.2019.

On Compliance of Section 1(1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Language of education III

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 9 (11) of the Education Law as being compatible with Article 1, the second sentence of Article 91, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme.

Case No 2018-21-01
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances”, insofar these Apply to Remuneration for Performing the Duties of a Guardian, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākā tiesa
16.05.2019.

20.05.2019.

On Compliance of Section 4 (1) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances”, insofar these Apply to Remuneration for Performing the Duties of a Guardian, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Benefits for the legal guardian residing abroad

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the words “and who permanently reside in the territory of Latvia” of Section 4 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019), insofar these apply to performance of the duties of a guardian, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void with respect to persons, to whom these legal norms had been applied or would have to be applied in the framework of administrative proceedings and who have begun to defend their fundamental rights in the framework of administrative proceedings, as of the moment when the infringement on the fundamental rights of these persons occurred.

Case No 2018-20-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 27 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jānis Neimanis
08.10.2019.

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 27 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel II

The Constitutional Court decided

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-20-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 2 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2018-19-03
On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Akciju sabiedrība “Ventbunkers”
07.10.2019.

-

On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme

Case short name: Cargo evaporations

Case No 2018-18-01
On Compliance of Section 141 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Hold
Persona B
23.08.2018.
23.01.2019.
23.01.2019.
08.05.2019.

-

On Compliance of Section 141 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Access to information from the National vehicle and driver information system

Case No 2018-17-03
On Compliance of Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
16.05.2019.

20.05.2019.

On Compliance of Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Gambling establishments in the historic centre of Riga

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” as being compatible with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2018-16-03
On Compliance of Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 9 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 63. 8, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Divdesmit Saeimas deputāti: Ivars Zariņš; Jeļena Lazareva; Jānis Tutins; Andris Morozovs; Vitālijs Orlovs; Boriss Cilevičs; Jānis Urbanovičs; Sergejs Potapkins; Ivans Ribakovs; Raimonds Rubiks; Aleksandrs Jakimovs; Ivans Klementjevs; Sergejs Mirskis; Igors Zujevs; Romans Miloslavskis; Sergejs Dolgopolovs; Artūrs Rubiks; Jānis Ādamsons; Mihails Zemļinskis un Andrejs Klementjevs.
18.04.2019.

23.04.2019.

On Compliance of Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 9 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 63. 8, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Overcompensation calculation for the mandatory procurement of electricity

Case No 2018-15-01
On Compliance of Section 27 (5) and Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jānis Kārkliņš
07.06.2019.

10.06.2019.

On Compliance of Section 27 (5) and Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel I

Case No 2018-14-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
02.05.2019.

07.05.2019.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Overtime work for persons employed in the Prisons Administration

The Constitutional Court held:

To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as void as of the moment when a person’s fundamental rights were infringed upon with respect to all persons, who, to defend their rights, have turned to a court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings in the court have not been completed yet, as well as to such persons, who, to defend their rights have turned to the court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings already have been completed.

Case No 2018-13-03
On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205 97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ivars Sergets
18.04.2019.

23.04.2019.

On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205 97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Access to standards for construction

Case No 2018-12-01
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 1, the Words of the Second Part of Section 1 “on the level of pre-school education and basic education, abiding by the provisions of Section 41 of this Law”, the words of the First Part of Section 3 “primary education” and Section 2 of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
12. Saeimas deputāti: Boriss Cilevičs, Igors Pimenovs, Ivans Ribakovs, Jānis Tutins, Artūrs Rubiks, Sergejs Potapkins, Ivars Zariņš, Romans Miloslavskis, Jeļena Lazareva, Jūlija Stepaņenko, Andris Morozovs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Raimonds Rubiks, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Jānis Ādamsons, Vitālijs Orlovs, Mihails Zemļinskis, Igors Zujevs, Sergejs Mirskis un Sergejs Dolgopolovs
23.04.2019.

24.04.2019.

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 1, the Words of the Second Part of Section 1 “on the level of pre-school education and basic education, abiding by the provisions of Section 41 of this Law”, the words of the First Part of Section 3 “primary education” and Section 2 of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Language of education II

Case No 2018-11-01
On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (92) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Edgars Bunka, Ruslans Dudkins, Solvita Kārkliņa, Sarmīte Merce, Ivars Geidāns, Aigars Balodis, Ulla Vilka, Aleksandra Romaščenko, Karina Sergejeva, Inesa Pavlova, Ingrīda Jonāne, Ralfs Meždreijs, Iveta Celmiņa, Dāvis Mednis, Tatjana Ževņeroviča, Daniēla Nātriņa, Rolands Rotts, Kristiāna Bernāne, Atis Pelčers, Aigars Reinis, Jēkabs Kavtaskins, Dzintra Malaševiča, Liene Štoka, Agnese Lielā, Rita Krūze, Daiga Balode, Laila Eliņa, Terēza Bezručko, Inese Kundžena-Kundženova, Mareks Zeltiņš, Laura Zaķe un Ilze Usa
06.03.2019.

10.06.2019.

On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (92) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Public access to the information concerning the amount of remuneration of state officials and employees

Case No 2018-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, with Article 90 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Sub-para ”e” of Annex 10A905 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the Wording that was in Force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mareks Beluga
21.02.2019.

26.02.2019.

On Compliance of Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, with Article 90 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Sub-para ”e” of Annex 10A905 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the Wording that was in Force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Criminal liability for the violation of rules on the circulation of goods of strategic significance

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the wording that was in force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia;

to recognise sub-para “e” of section 10A905 of the Annex to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the wording that was in force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

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 2018-08-03
On Compliance of Para 18 and Para 20 of the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 4 September 2014 No. 27 “Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
05.03.2019.

06.03.2019.

On Compliance of Para 18 and Para 20 of the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 4 September 2014 No. 27 “Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Rental payment for a grave

Case No 2018-07-05
On Suspending Para 1, in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” with Section 49 of the Law “On Local Governments”
Adjudicated
Rēzeknes pilsētas dome
15.11.2018.

-

On Suspending Para 1, in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” with Section 49 of the Law “On Local Governments”

Case short name: Parents' obligation to make a partial payment for the catering costs for children

The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 26 September 2017 No. 1-2/7346 “On Suspending Sub-para 1.3., in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” (minutes No. 103, Para 13) as being compatible with Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”.

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 2018-05-01
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Joined
Arnis Franckevičs
30.01.2018.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Combined case: 2018-01-01

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 2018-03-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Žanete Aščuka
24.01.2018.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-34-01

Case No 2018-02-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Māra Dabrovska (Mara Dabrowski)
10.01.2018.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-34-01

Case No 2018-01-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Tourism Service”
25.04.2018.

27.04.2018.

On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Administrative Violations Procedure - Appeal

The Constitutional Court held:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-01-01 “On Compliance of the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

The decision is not subject to appeal.

Case No 2017-35-03
On Compliance of Sub-para 3.2.1. of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 9 June 2015 No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
18.10.2018.

22.10.2018.

On Compliance of Sub-para 3.2.1. of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 9 June 2015 No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2017-34-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Solvita Zandere
20.12.2017.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01

Case No 2017-33-03
On Compliance of Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 Nr. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvās rajona tiesa
18.10.2018.

22.10.2018.

On Compliance of Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 Nr. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2017-32-05
On compliance of the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development (hereinafter also – the Minister) No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”
Adjudicated
Salaspils novada dome
29.06.2018.

02.07.2018.

On compliance of the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development (hereinafter also – the Minister) No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”

Case short name: Local Governments' Standing Committees

Case No 2017-31-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Agris Juris Amoliņš; Mihails Farbtuhs
24.11.2017.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01

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 2017-29-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību „Alcamo”
09.11.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-16-01

Case No 2017-28-0306
On Compliance of Para 31 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 18 and the First Part of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
29.06.2018.

02.07.2018.

On Compliance of Para 31 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 18 and the First Part of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Case short name: The Real Estate Tax and Foreigners

Case No 2017-27-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Mārtiņš Kalniņš
07.11.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.

The judgement will be published in the official journal “Latvijas Vēstnesis” within the term set in Section 33 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law.

Combined case: 2017-16-01

Case No 2017-26-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ēriks Jaunzems
01.11.2017.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-17-01

Case No 2017-25-01
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Tatjana Ždanoka
29.06.2018.

02.07.2018.

On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Restrictions on the Voting Rights III

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law as being compatible with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and is not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.

Case No 2017-24-01
On Compliance of Section 213 and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Raimonds Bētiņš
28.09.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 213 and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-16-01

Case No 2017-23-01
On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ēriks Osis
14.06.2018.

15.06.2018.

On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Refusal to Initiate Cassation Legal Proceedings in Criminal Procedure

The Constitutional Court held:

1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.

Case No 2017-22-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Alvis Hāze
18.09.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-16-01

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.

Case No 2017-20-0103
On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA “Skonto Būve”, SIA “GRIF 1” un SIA “GRF”
23.05.2018.

28.05.2018.

On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Official Secrets (Industrial Security Certificate)

The Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in the case No. 2017‑20‑0103 “On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2017-19-01
On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
20.06.2018.

21.06.2018.

On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case short name: Mitigation of the Regime for Serving a Sentence

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-19-01 “On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

The decision is not subject to appeal.

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 2017-17-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Soņa Traube (Sonia Traub)
12.04.2018.

13.04.2018.

On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Compulsory Lease IV

The Constitutional Court ruled to recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and void as of 1 May 2019.

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

Case No 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Adjudicated
Aleksejs Stepanovs
15.03.2018.

19.03.2018.

On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case short name: The Administrative Violations Code - the Court's Objectivity and Appeal

The Constitutional Court has ruled:

1. to recognise Section 213 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

2. to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether the initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 30 November 2018;

3. with regard to the applicant Alvis Hāzis, to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publication of this judgment;

4. to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage an obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;

5. with regard to the applicants Aleksejs Stepanovs, Alvis Hāzis, Raimonds Bētiņš, Mārtiņš Kalniņs and the limited liability company “Alcamo”, as well as the individuals who, for protection of their fundamental rights, applied to the Constitutional Court before the day of coming into force of this judgment, to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage the obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment the infringement of a corresponding applicant’s fundamental rights occurred.

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 2017-14-03
On compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Noise Assessment and Management” with Para 7 of Section 2 and Section 181 (3) of law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as of Sub-para 2.4 of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and motor sports events, which are held at open auto or motor racing track located in a populated place (town or village) and for the organisation of which a permit for organising public events has been issued in accordance with the procedure established by Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events, with Para 7 of Section 2 of the law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
09.05.2017.
-
-
-

-

On compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Noise Assessment and Management” with Para 7 of Section 2 and Section 181 (3) of law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as of Sub-para 2.4 of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and motor sports events, which are held at open auto or motor racing track located in a populated place (town or village) and for the organisation of which a permit for organising public events has been issued in accordance with the procedure established by Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events, with Para 7 of Section 2 of the law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2017-02-03

Case No 2017-13-01
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas ģenerālprokurors
24.01.2018.

26.01.2018.

On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Prosecutors' Salaries

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-13-01 “On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

The decision is not subject to appeal.

Case No 2017-12-01
On compliance of Part 123 and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar as they restrict the right to have tax overpayment refunded within a reasonable term, with the first, second and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
11.04.2018.

12.04.2018.

On compliance of Part 123 and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar as they restrict the right to have tax overpayment refunded within a reasonable term, with the first, second and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Refund of Overpaid VAT

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
respect to all persons, to whom the contested norms had been applied and who had begun protecting their rights in the procedure established by the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings had not been concluded yet, to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force on the day of its publication.

Case No 2017-11-03
On Compliance of Para 91 of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 June 2014 No. 350 “Procedure for Evaluating Professional Activities of Teachers” with Article 1, 64 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and with the First and the Third Part of Section 491 of Education Law, and of Para 27 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulation on Remuneration for Teachers’ Work” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Inga Bite; Inguna Sudraba; Valērijs Agešins; Mārtiņš Šics; Gunārs Kūtris; Jānis Urbanovičs; Ivans Ribakovs; Silvija Šimfa; Andrejs Elksniņš; Rihards Melgailis; Jānis Ādamsons; Aleksandrs Jakimovs; Juris Viļums; Aivars Meija; Sergejs Mirskis; Boriss Cilevičs; Arvīds Platpers; Artūrs Rubiks; Ringolds Balodis; Vladimirs Nikonovs un Igors Pimenovs
20.04.2017.
20.09.2017.
-
30.01.2018.

23.02.2018.

On Compliance of Para 91 of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 June 2014 No. 350 “Procedure for Evaluating Professional Activities of Teachers” with Article 1, 64 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and with the First and the Third Part of Section 491 of Education Law, and of Para 27 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulation on Remuneration for Teachers’ Work” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Evaluation of Teachers

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise Para 91 of Regulation No. 350 and Para 27 of Regulation No. 445 as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment of their adoption.

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

Case No 2017-10-01
On Compliance of Section 629 (5) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and on Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 631 (3) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
IMEX PROVIDER LTD
11.10.2017.

13.10.2017.

On Compliance of Section 629 (5) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and on Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 631 (3) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Accessibility of Case Materials and the Appealability of a Decision

The Constitutional Court held:

To recognise Section 629(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent a court does not have the right to re-examine the legality and validity of the decision taken by the person directing the proceedings on a person’s right to familiarise himself with materials in the case, as being invalid with respect to IMEX PROVIDER LTD as of the moment when the infringement of fundamental rights occurred, taking into consideration the judgement by the Constitutional Court of 23 May 2017 in case No. 2016-13-01.

To recognise the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.

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

Case No 2017-09-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 104(1) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013) with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sanita Bokta-Strautmane
15.02.2018.

19.02.2018.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 104(1) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013) with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Parents' Benefit (of a Self-employed Person)

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme.

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

Case No 2017-08-01
On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
22.12.2017.

27.12.2017.

On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Court's Right to Amend an Administrative Act

the Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

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 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 2017-06-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Joined
VK; AJ; IC; DS; RL
07.03.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2017-05-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Joined
Divas fiziskas personas
03.02.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2017-04-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jeļena Dadukina
25.01.2017.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-20-01

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 2017-02-03
On Compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, insofar it Applies to Moto Racing Tracks Located within a Territory, where Individual Residential Houses and High-Rise Residential Houses are Built, with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
19.12.2017.

21.12.2017.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, insofar it Applies to Moto Racing Tracks Located within a Territory, where Individual Residential Houses and High-Rise Residential Houses are Built, with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Noise in Moto and Auto Racing Tracks

The Constitutional Court decided:

To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” as being compatible with Section 181 (3) of the Law “On Pollution”.

To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, as well as Sub-para 2.4. of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and moto sports events which are held in open-air auto and moto racing tracks located in a populated area (city or village) and for which a permit for organising a public event has been issued in the procedure set out in the Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” with respect to the applicant in the administrative case No. A420346615 – Elza Freiberga – as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the infringement on her fundamental rights occurred.

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 2017-01-01
On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ludmila Rjazanova
17.11.2017.

22.11.2017.

On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Signs of Street Names

The Constitutional Court decided:

to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

The decision is not subject to appeal.

Case No 2016-31-01
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
26.10.2017.

27.10.2017.

On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Judges'Salaries IV

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognised the first sentence of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is valid and not subject to appeal, it enters in force on the day it is pronounced.

Case No 2016-30-01
Joined
Viena privāto tiesību juridiska persona
20.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-16-01

Case No 2016-29-01
Joined
Trīs fiziskas personas
14.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-28-01
Joined
Viena fiziska persona
14.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-27-01
Joined
Četras fiziskas personas
09.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-26-01
Joined
Trīs fiziskās personas
01.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-25-01
Joined
Divas fiziskās personas
01.12.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-24-03
On Compliance of Para 2361 “Use of Territory and Construction Rules” of Binding Regulation No.8 of 24 March 2016 by Jūrmala City Council “On Approving the Graphic Part, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Construction in the Spatial Plan of Jūrmala City” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Rolands Citajevs; Pjotrs Spasibjonoks; Olga Citajeva; Roberts Lilienfelds; Aija Lilienfelde; Tatiana Kolyada; Viesturs Lieģis; Jeļena Ņeženceva; Tatjana Horoševa; Ksenia Kulikova; Marks Gubermans; Aleksandrs Teplihs
06.10.2017.

10.10.2017.

On Compliance of Para 2361 “Use of Territory and Construction Rules” of Binding Regulation No.8 of 24 March 2016 by Jūrmala City Council “On Approving the Graphic Part, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Construction in the Spatial Plan of Jūrmala City” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Spatial Plan in Jūrmala, Bulduri

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

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

Case No 2016-23-03
On Compliance of Para 12.1.1 and Para 60 of the Cabinet Regulation of 13 October 2015 No. 591 “Procedure in which Learners are Enrolled at and Discharged from Institutions of General Education and Special Pre-school Education Groups, as well as Moved to a Higher Form” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jaunjelgavas novada dome
29.06.2017.

30.06.2017.

On Compliance of Para 12.1.1 and Para 60 of the Cabinet Regulation of 13 October 2015 No. 591 “Procedure in which Learners are Enrolled at and Discharged from Institutions of General Education and Special Pre-school Education Groups, as well as Moved to a Higher Form” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Minimum Number of Students

The Constitutional Court ruled:

To recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment they were adopted.

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

Case No 2016-22-01
Joined
Aloizs Stepens; Ivita Baumane
10.10.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-20-01

Case No 2016-21-01
Joined
Rudīte Klikuča
05.10.2016.
-
-
-

-

Combined case: 2016-20-01

Case No 2016-20-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jana Ruģele
03.10.2016.
03.03.2017.
-
25.04.2017.

08.05.2017.

On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency Administrator

The Court’s Findings and Decisions:

On 6 January 2017 the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” entered into force, by which, inter alia, Section 17 was deleted from the Insolvency Law.

Pursuant to Para 2 of Section 29 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, legal proceedings in a case may be terminated before a judgement is pronounced by a decision of the Constitutional Court, if the contested legal form has become invalid. In assessing, whether there were grounds for terminating legal proceedings in the case, the Constitutional Court examined: 1) whether the contested norm had become invalid; and 2) whether no circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were present.

The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the Insolvency Law that were currently in force did not comprise such grounds for terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate as the one that was included in the contested norm. Legal regulation on terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate and removing an administrator from office has changed substantially. Thus, the contested norm has become invalid.

In examining, whether no circumstances existed requiring continuation of legal proceedings, the Constitutional Court assessed, whether the fact that the contested norm had become invalid was sufficient grounds for considering that the violation of a person’s fundamental rights caused by the contested norm had been eliminated.

The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm did not violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the administrative cases regarding terminating the operation of administrator’s certificates that had been issued to them had been terminated. I.e., the applicants still have valid administrators’ certificates. Thus, there are no circumstances in the case that would require continuation of legal proceedings and the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings.

Case No 2016-19-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Joined
Piecas fiziskas personas
12.09.2016.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-18-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Joined
Divas privāto tiesību juridiskās personas
12.09.2016.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-16-01

Case No 2016-17-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Joined
Četras privāto tiesību juridiskās personas
21.07.2016.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-16-01

Case No 2016-16-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Privāto tiesību juridiskās personas
16.11.2017.

17.11.2017.

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Legal Persons

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3 and Section 5 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

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

Case No 2016-15-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Joined
Divas fiziskās personas
21.07.2016.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Combined case: 2016-14-01

Case No 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Deviņas fiziskas personas
19.10.2017.

20.10.2017.

On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural Persons

The Constitutional Court held:

1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

2) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;

3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.

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

Case No 2016-13-01
On Compliance of the Fifth Part of Section 629 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību „Cell Finance”
23.05.2017.

25.05.2017.

On Compliance of the Fifth Part of Section 629 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Accessibility of Case Materials

The Constitutional Court held:

The contested norm, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

With respect to the limited liability company “Cell Finance”, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme as of the moment when the violation of fundamental right occurred.

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

Case No 2016-12-01
On Compliance of Section 5021 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
18.05.2017.

19.05.2017.

On Compliance of Section 5021 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Increasing the Regime for Serving a Sentence

The Constitutional Court decided:

The recognise the contested norm, insofar it applies to a decision on increasing a sentenced prisoner’s regime for serving the sentence, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2018.

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

Case No 2016-11-01
On Compliance of Section 11(4) of the Law “On State Pensions” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
15.06.2017.

19.06.2017.

On Compliance of Section 11(4) of the Law “On State Pensions” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Old Age Pension (Retirement before the Full Retirement Age)

The Constitutional Court ruled:

The contested norm, insofar it denies to a person the right to retire before reaching the full retirement age and demands establishing that the child’s disability had been recognised in accordance with criteria for granting disability status envisaged in regulatory enactments of the USSR, is to be recognised as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

With respect to persons, who have started protecting their rights in procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and to whom the contested norm is applicable, it is recognised as being invalid as of the moment of its adoption.

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

Case No 2016-10-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Andris Daugaviņš, Judīte Jakovina, Rita Skrinda, Māris Čerpinskis un Jānis Zuzāns
06.04.2017.

10.04.2017.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, as Practitioners of Private Professions

On 6 April 2017 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-10-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 222 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2016-09-01
On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
12. Saeimas deputāti: Inga Bite, Nellija Kleinberga, Andrejs Klementjevs, Mārtiņš Bondars, Gunārs Kūtris, Jānis Ruks, Inguna Sudraba, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Jānis Ādamsons, Zenta Tretjaka, Juris Viļums, Igors Zujevs, Silvija Šimfa, Arvīds Platpers, Aivars Meija, Jānis Urbanovičs, Mārtiņš Šics, Boriss Cilevičs, Mihails Zemļinskis un Dainis Liepiņš
18.01.2017.

19.01.2017.

On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Pre-election Campaigning on the Internet

On 18 January 2017 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-09-01 “On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2016-08-01
On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ilze Spila
09.12.2016.

13.12.2016.

On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Expropriation of Immovable Property (Tīnūži Road)

The Constitutional Court decided to recognise law “On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.

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 2016-05-01
On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ivans Fariņecs, Viktors Saprikins (Victor Saprykin), Iļja Ribakovs (Ilya Rybakov), Ādams Tkačuks, Aleksandrs Volčenko (Alexander Volchenko), Nikolajs Dmitrijevs (Nikolay Dmitriev), Ivans Sturovs (Ivan Sturov), Jurijs Medvedevs (Yury Medvedev), Nikolajs Trukhans (Nikolay Trukhan), Boriss Undalovs, Igors Puščs (Igor Puszcz), Aleksandrs Groševs, Vladimirs Gutcaits, Nikolajs Ševčenko (Nikolay Shevchenko), Vitālijs Rudakovs (Vitaly Rudakov), Anatolijs Ņilovs, Andrejs Peizums, Viktors Klingenbergs un Ivans Gagarins (Ivan Gagarin)
04.03.2016.
04.08.2016.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2016-03-01

Case No 2016-04-03
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
18.12.2018.

19.12.2018.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Farmers' Pensions

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006””” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2016-03-01
On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jānis Kotāns, Jānis Cunskis, Zigizmunds Misjuns, Jevgēņijs Grigorjevs (Evgeny Grigoriev), Oļegs Kravčuks (Oleg Kravchuk), Ivans Lavreckis, Jūlijs Rabčeņuks (Yuly Rabchenyuk), Arkādijs Žukovskis, Staņislavs Gluhovs un Ivans Pupikins (Ivan Pupykin)
21.10.2016.

25.10.2016.

On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Old Age Pension (Double Pensions)

On 21 October 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-03-01 “On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2016-02-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Zigurds Aumeisters
23.11.2016.

25.11.2016.

On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency Administrator

On 23 November 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-02-01 “On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.

Case No 2016-01-01
On compliance of Section 36320 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aivars Trops
28.09.2016.

30.09.2016.

On compliance of Section 36320 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Appeal in Insolvency Cases

Case No 2015-25-01
On Compliance of Section 60, Section 61 and Section 62 of the Law On Taxes and Fees with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
12. Saeimas deputāti: Gunārs Kūtris, Jānis Urbanovičs, Dainis Liepiņš, Inguna Sudraba, Silvija Šimfa, Arvīds Platpers, Aivars Meija, Mārtiņš Bondars, Inga Bite, Jānis Ruks, Sergejs Mirskis, Raimonds Rubiks, Sergejs Potapkins, Vitālijs Orlovs, Boriss Cilevičs, Igors Zujevs, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Jānis Ādamsons, Zenta Tretjaka un Aleksandrs Jakimovs
15.11.2016.

16.11.2016.

On Compliance of Section 60, Section 61 and Section 62 of the Law On Taxes and Fees with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Board's Liability for Late Tax Payments

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme.

Case No 2015-24-01
On Compliance of the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Elīna Dupate
24.05.2016.

25.05.2016.

On Compliance of the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, Assessors of Material Investments

Case No 2015-23-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Para 12 in the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On State Pensions", Insofar it Provides that the Old-age Pension to be Granted Instead of Service Pension May Be Granted in the Amount that is Smaller than the Service Pension Received until the Moment of Granting the Old-age Pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
12.09.2016.

14.09.2016.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Para 12 in the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On State Pensions", Insofar it Provides that the Old-age Pension to be Granted Instead of Service Pension May Be Granted in the Amount that is Smaller than the Service Pension Received until the Moment of Granting the Old-age Pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Old-age Pension (after a Service Pension)

On 12 September 2016 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2015-23-01 “On compliance of the second sentence of the third part of Para12 in the Transitional Provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar it provides that the old-age pension to be granted instead of service pension may be granted in the amount that is smaller than the service pension received until the moment of granting the old-age pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Case No 2015-22-01
On Compliance of Section 7(3) of Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials with the First Sentence of Article 110 and the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sanita Ozola
27.10.2015.
27.05.2016.
-
02.06.2016.

29.06.2016.

On Compliance of Section 7(3) of Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials with the First Sentence of Article 110 and the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: A Judge as an Assistant to a Disabled Family Member

The Constitutional Court decided that the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.

Case No 2015-21-01
On Compliance of the Section 12 (1) of Law On State Pensions, insofar it Provides for Using an Index that is Smaller than "1" in Updating Pension Capital, and Sub-paragraph 65.2 of Transition Provisions of Law On State Pensions with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
12.Saeimas deputāti: Andrejs Klementjevs, Gunārs Kūtris, Jānis Urbanovičs, Inguna Sudraba, Vitālijs Orlovs, Aivars Meija, Silvija Šimfa, Arvīds Platpers, Ringolds Balodis, Zenta Tretjaka, Raimonds Rubiks, Artūrs Rubiks, Ivans Ribakovs, Ivans Klementjevs, Igors Pimenovs, Jūlija Stepaņenko, Jānis Tutins, Sergejs Mirskis, Mihails Zemļinskis un Jānis Ādamsons
21.04.2016.

22.04.2016.

On Compliance of the Section 12 (1) of Law On State Pensions, insofar it Provides for Using an Index that is Smaller than "1" in Updating Pension Capital, and Sub-paragraph 65.2 of Transition Provisions of Law On State Pensions with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Updating the Pension Capital

Case No 2015-20-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mārtiņš Otomers
20.01.2016.

21.01.2016.

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, Advocates

Case No 2015-19-01
On Compliance of the First, Third and Fifth Part of Section 657 of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ringolds Meļķis un Ivars Straume
29.04.2016.

03.05.2016.

On Compliance of the First, Third and Fifth Part of Section 657 of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

to recognize the first, third and fifth part of Section 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar they allow that a prosecutor, who has conducted investigative activities in criminal proceedings, has supervised investigation, conducted criminal prosecution or brought public charges, decides on the issue of renewing criminal proceedings in connection with newly disclosed circumstances, as being incompatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and being invalid as of 1 January 2017

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 2015-17-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Armands Rasa un Jānis Ešenvalds
09.07.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2015-03-01

Case No 2015-16-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Olavs Cers, Jānis Jurkāns un Haralds Velmers
03.07.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2015-03-01

Case No 2015-15-01
On Compliance of Para 27 in Transitional Provisions of Electronic Mass Media Law with Article 1, the First Sentence in Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Krievu hītu radio"
18.04.2016.

19.04.2016.

On Compliance of Para 27 in Transitional Provisions of Electronic Mass Media Law with Article 1, the First Sentence in Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Radio "Krievu hītu radio"

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 2015-13-03
On Compliance of the First Sentence in Para 24 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 19 February 2013 No. 211 "On the Municipal Fee for the Maintenance and Development of the Municipality Infrastructure in Riga" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
12.02.2016.

15.02.2016.

On Compliance of the First Sentence in Para 24 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 19 February 2013 No. 211 "On the Municipal Fee for the Maintenance and Development of the Municipality Infrastructure in Riga" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held : to recognise the first sentence in Para 24 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 19 February 2013 No. 211 “On the Municipal Fee for the Maintenance and Development of the Municipality Infrastructure in Riga” as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date of its adoption.

Case No 2015-12-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Raivo Sjademe, Daina Puķīte, Aldis Saulietis, Māris Intlers, Armands Strods
30.04.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2015-03-01

Case No 2015-11-03
On Compliance of Para 19 and Para 20 of the Bank of Latvia Regulation No. 141 of 15 September 2014 "Requirements Regarding Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism in Buying and Selling Foreign Currency Cash" with Article 1 and Article 64, as well as the First Sentence in Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "TAVEX"
02.03.2016.

04.03.2016.

On Compliance of Para 19 and Para 20 of the Bank of Latvia Regulation No. 141 of 15 September 2014 "Requirements Regarding Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism in Buying and Selling Foreign Currency Cash" with Article 1 and Article 64, as well as the First Sentence in Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Bank of Latvia Regulation

The Constitutional Court held :

to recognize Paragraph 19 and Paragraph 20 of the Bank of Latvia Regulation No. 141 “Requirements Regarding Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism in Buying and Selling Foreign Currency Cash” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 64, as well as the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the moment of adoption thereof.

Case No 2015-10-01
On Compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Persona A
23.11.2015.

25.11.2015.

On Compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Judge as an Assistant to a Disabled Child

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise the third part of Section 7 of the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Official”with regard to a judge, who needs to provide assistant’s services to his own disabled child, as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the third part of Section 7 of the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Official”with regard to a judge, who needs to provide assistant’s services to his own disabled child, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.

Case No 2015-09-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Arta Snipe, Indra Kaniņa-Šlitke un Normunds Šlitke
14.04.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2015-03-01

Case No 2015-08-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Zigurds Krastiņš, Aldis Maldups, Elvijs Vēbers un Kristaps Andersons
24.03.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2015-03-01

Case No 2015-07-03
On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 May 2012 No. 341 "The Procedure for Establishing and Compensating Losses linked to the Provision of Public Transport Services and Setting the Tariff of Public Transport Services" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Jelgavas autobusu parks" un AS "Nordeka"
08.12.2015.

11.12.2015.

On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 May 2012 No. 341 "The Procedure for Establishing and Compensating Losses linked to the Provision of Public Transport Services and Setting the Tariff of Public Transport Services" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Transport Services

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme.

The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. The Judgement shall enter into force on the day it is published in the official journal “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.

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 2015-05-03
On Compliance of Para 100 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 262 of 16 March 2010 "Regulations Regarding the Production of Electricity Using Renewable Energy Sources and the Procedures for the Determination of the Price" with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments.
14.10.2015.

15.10.2015.

On Compliance of Para 100 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 262 of 16 March 2010 "Regulations Regarding the Production of Electricity Using Renewable Energy Sources and the Procedures for the Determination of the Price" with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Suspension of the Mandatory Electricity Procurement

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme.

The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

Case No 2015-03-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Madara Volksone, Dāvis Volksons, Lelde Švāģere, Ivo Svāģers, Evija Novicāne, Kaspars Novicāns un Vija Ritenberga
21.12.2015.

23.12.2015.

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Insolvency Administrators as Officials and also - Advocates

The Constitutional Court held :

to recognise Section 2 of the law of 25 September 2014 “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” and the law of 30 October 2014 “Amendments to the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials”, to the extent they do not ensure to administrators of insolvency proceedings, who are simultaneously also advocates, guarantees for professional activities for retaining the chosen employment, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2015-04-01
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law "Amendments to the Insolvency Law" of 25 September 2014 and the Law "Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Uldis Bērziņš, Linda Sniega-Svilāne un Santa Strode
22.02.2016.

24.02.2016.

On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law "Amendments to the Insolvency Law" of 25 September 2014 and the Law "Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, tax Consultants, Members of a Company's Board

On 22 February 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2015-04-01 “On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” of 25 September 2014 and the Law “Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials” of 30 October 2014 with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Case No 2015-02-01
On Compliance of Section 8(1) of Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Viktors Krasovickis
16.01.2015.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 8(1) of Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-36-01

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.

Case No 2014-36-01
On Compliance of Section 8(1) of Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Maksims Kargins
13.10.2015.

15.10.2015.

On Compliance of Section 8(1) of Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Interest on Deposit

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme.

Case No 2014-35-03
On Compliance of Para 54.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 "Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 28(1) of Electricity Market Law
Adjudicated
SIA "Windau"
06.10.2015.

08.10.2015.

On Compliance of Para 54.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 "Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 28(1) of Electricity Market Law

Case short name: The Price of Natural Gas in Mandatory Procurement

Case No 2014-34-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2), Section 42 and Words in Section 177(3) "with or without confiscation of property" of the Criminal Law with the Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Tatjana Kargina
08.04.2015.

10.04.2015.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2), Section 42 and Words in Section 177(3) "with or without confiscation of property" of the Criminal Law with the Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Confiscation of Property

The Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme.

Case No 2014-33-01
On Compliance of Section 279(1) of and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "TAVEX"
11.03.2015.

12.03.2015.

On Compliance of Section 279(1) of and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme

Case short name: Appeal in Cases of Administrative Violations

On 11 March 2015 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in case No. 2014-33-01 “On Compliance of Section 279(1) and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Case No 2014-32-01
On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
a/s "Tukuma straume"
06.02.2015.

09.02.2015.

On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Arbitration Courts

Case No 2014-31-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 44 (1) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording of 29 November 2012) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ivo Ržepickis
29.04.2015.

01.05.2015.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 44 (1) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording of 29 November 2012) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Litigation Expenses

Case No 2014-30-0103
On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No. 27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Dobeles rajona Bērzes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "DZIRNAVAS", Tukuma rajona Sēmes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "Dzirnavas", Liepājas rajona Kalētu pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "ZARIŅI", zemnieku saimniecība "OZOLKALNI", Saldus rajona Šķēdes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "EZERSPĪĶI", Kalsnavas pagasta J.Rudzīša zemnieku saimniecība "STIEBRIŅI", Saldus rajona Nīgrandes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "GRANTIŅI", Rīgas rajona Garkalnes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "SKUĶĪŠU DZIRNAVAS", Saldus rajona Brocēnu pilsētas zemnieku saimniecība "DZIRNAVAS", Tukuma rajona Irlavas pagasta G. Grīga zemnieku saimniecība "Bišpēteri", Saldus rajona Zirņu pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "ZAĶĪŠI", Saldus rajona Pampāļu pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "AVOTI", Smiltenes novada Palsmanes pagasta Sanitas Ozoliņas – Šmites zemnieku saimniecība "RAUZAS DZIRNAVAS", Ogres rajona Lēdmanes pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "CELMIŅI-1", Andras Cibuļskas Ādažu pagasta zemnieku saimniecība "Jaunkraukļi", SIA "Billes HES", SIA "Eglītis un biedri", SIA "RANKA HIDRO", SIA "Hydroenergy Latvia", SIA "Rubīns GG", SIA "Krāce", SIA "Ogres HES", SIA "GREV", SIA "Zilupes HES", SIA "Vecogre", SIA "Krēsliņi", SIA "Mazdambji", SIA "Vadakstes HES", SIA "ANNENIEKU ŪDENS DZIRNAVAS", SIA "MEŽROZĪTE HES", SIA "MEGATE", SIA "SASPĒLE", SIA "SANKAĻI", SIA "Braslas HES", SIA "TOVTRA", SIA "NAGĻU HES", SIA "GAUJAS HIDROELEKTROSTACIJA", SIA "Āžu HES", SIA "GM", SIA "Mazā Jugla Hidro", SIA "Krīgaļu dzirnavas", SIA "Vēžu Krāces", SIA "GRĪVAIŠU HES", SIA "Spridzēnu HES", SIA "IU CEĻŠ", SIA "Cirīšu HES", SIA "GALGAUSKAS DZIRNAVU HES", SIA "JANOVSKIS", SIA "GA 21", SIA "AG 21", SIA "KORNA DZIRNAVU HES", SIA "PILSKALNA HES", SIA "NOVATORS", SIA "Labdeves", SIA "FIRMA-GABRO", SIA "IEVULĪČI", SIA "NERETAS DZIRNAVAS", SIA "Raunas dzirnavu HES", SIA "SUDA", SIA "EDVIHES", SIA "ENERGO 2000", SIA "GRIENVALDE", SIA Dzirnavu HES "KALNA KĀRKLI", SIA Valkas pilsētas "KALNDZIRNAVAS", SIA "DZELDAS HES", SIA "ĒRBERĢES HES", SIA "GAISMA-97", SIA "VN ŪDENS-DZIRNAVAS", SIA "DZIRNAVAS-K", SIA "HS BĒNE", SIA "PATINA", "Lūkins & Lūkins", SIA "BRANDEĻU HES", SIA "Oserviss", Norvaiša individuālā uzņēmuma "KARĪNA", individuālais komersants "BITMETA DZIRNAVAS", SIA "Spēkstacija PR"
22.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No. 27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Natural Resources Tax for Small Hydroelectric Power Stations

Combined case: 2014-11-0103

Case No 2014-29-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
"ĒRBERĢES HES", SIA "IU CEĻŠ" un SIA "KRĪGAĻU DZIRNAVAS"
11.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-28-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
AS Graanul Invest, Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību "Graanul Invest", SIA "Incukalns Energy" un SIA "Graanul Pellets Energy"
11.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-27-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "BIO FUTURE" un SIA "GAS STREAM"
11.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-26-01
On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the first and the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA DNB līzings
11.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the first and the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-13-01

Case No 2014-25-01
On Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Pieteikuma iesniedzējas: SIA "BALTENEKO", SIA "SSR", SIA "TEK 1", SIA "Priekules BioEnerģija", SIA "JUGLAS JAUDA", SIA "VANGAŽU SILDSPĒKS", SIA "HIDROLATS", SIA "Saldus siltums" un SIA "GTG 1"
08.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-24-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "UniEnergy"
07.07.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-23-01
On Compliance of Section 363.8 (8) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording that was effective until 31 October 2010), insofar it Applies to the Right of the Insolvency Administrator to Appeal against a Court’s Decision, by which the Administrator is Dismissed from the Insolvency Proceedings, with Article 92 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Gatis Krasovskis
12.03.2015.

16.03.2015.

On Compliance of Section 363.8 (8) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording that was effective until 31 October 2010), insofar it Applies to the Right of the Insolvency Administrator to Appeal against a Court’s Decision, by which the Administrator is Dismissed from the Insolvency Proceedings, with Article 92 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Appeal of the Dismissal of an Insolvency Administrator

Case No 2014-22-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "Olainfarm enerģija", SIA "BK Enerģija", SIA "Energy & Communication", SIA "Elektro bizness", SIA "Sal-Energo", SIA "Dienvidlatgales Īpašumi", SIA "RB Vidzeme", SIA "B-Energo", SIA "BIOSIL", SIA "LATNEFTEGAZ", Akciju sabiedrība "Sātiņi Energo LM", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Brocēnu Enerģija", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Preiļu siltums" un Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "SM Energo"
30.06.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-21-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
AS "OLENERGO"
26.06.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-20-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "NERETAS DZIRNAVAS"
26.06.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-19-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "LENKAS ENERGO", SIA "ETB", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Rietumu elektriskie tīkli", SIA "W.e.s.1", SIA "W.e.s.2", SIA "W.e.s.3", SIA "W.e.s.4", SIA "W.e.s.5", SIA "W.e.s.6", SIA "W.e.s.7", SIA "W.e.s.8", SIA "W.e.s.9", SIA "W.e.s.10", SIA "W.e.s.11", SIA "W.e.s.12", SIA "W.e.s.13", SIA "W.e.s.15", SIA "W.e.s.16", SIA "W.e.s.17" un SIA "W.e.s.18"
11.06.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-18-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Lielmežotne" un Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "STRELĒCIJA"
04.06.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-17-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "AGRO 3", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Agro Lestene", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Bērzi Bio", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "BIODEGVIELA", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "BIOPLUS", SIA "BIO ZIEDI", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "EKORIMA", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "International Investments", Limbažu rajona Zaigas Treimanes zemnieku saimniecība "JAUNDZELVES", Vintera Jelgavas rajona zemnieku saimniecība "LĪGO", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "RIGENS", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "RZS ENERGO", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Sidgunda Bio", Sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību LATVIJAS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS UNIVERSITĀTES MĀCĪBU UN PĒTĪJUMU SAIMNIECĪBA "VECAUCE", SIA "Zaļās Zemes Enerģija" un SIA "ZEMTURI ZS"
23.05.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-16-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2) of Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvās rajona tiesa.
02.03.2015.

04.03.2015.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2) of Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Construction in the Coastal Dune Protection Zone

Case No 2014-15-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "KEGO", AS "Residence Energy", SIA "SGC" un SIA "Uni-enerkom"
16.05.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-14-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "Arsenal Energy", SIA "EcoZeta", sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "ENERCOM PLUS", "SIA "Ošmaļi Energy"", SIA "Piejūra Energy", sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību "Winergy", SIA "Zemgales enerģijas parks" un sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību "Zemgaļi JR"
16.05.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 3 and Para 1 of Section 4 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2014-12-01

Case No 2014-13-01
On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "RMB One", SIA DNB līzings
16.04.2015.

20.04.2015.

On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Reversal of an Execution of a Judgement

Case No 2014-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "AD Biogāzes stacija", SIA "BIO Auri", SIA "Daile Agro", SIA "BIOPAB" un SIA "Agro Iecava"
03.07.2015.

06.07.2015.

On Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Subsidized Electricity Tax

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Subsidized Energy Tax Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-11-0103
On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No.27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Dobeles HES", SIA "Palsmanes ūdensdzirnavu HES", AS "Latgales enerģētika" un SIA "SL Plus"
25.03.2015.

26.03.2015.

On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No.27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Natural Resources Tax for Small Hydroelectric Power Stations

Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise Subparagraph “f” of Para 1 of Section 3(1) and Section 191 of Natural Resources Tax Law as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No. 27 “Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No. 404 “Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources”” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-10-03
On Compliance of Subparagraph 3.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law
Joined
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Civillietu departaments
31.03.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Subparagraph 3.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law

Combined case: 2014-06-03

Case No 2014-09-01
On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Hipotēku bankas nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra"
28.11.2014.

01.12.2014.

On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Arbitration Courts

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 495(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme.
2. As regards the submitter of the constitutional complaint  the limited liability company “HIPOTĒKU BANKAS NEKUSTAMĀ ĪPAŠUMA AĢENTŪRA” (at present – limited liability company ”Hiponia”)  to recognise Section 495(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, to the extent it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when the party’s, who submitted the constitutional complaint, fundamental rights were violated.
3. To recognise Section 24(1) of the Law on Arbitration Courts, insofar it prohibits from contesting the jurisdiction of an arbitration court at a court of general jurisdiction, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-08-03
On Compliance of Para 555 of Annex 16 "Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services" to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 December 2013 No. 1529 "The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care", insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Birth outside Inpatient Facilities, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
12.02.2015.

16.02.2015.

On Compliance of Para 555 of Annex 16 "Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services" to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 December 2013 No. 1529 "The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care", insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Birth outside Inpatient Facilities, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Home Birth

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 7 of the 17 December 2013 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 1529 “The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care”, as well as Para 555 of Annex 16 “Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services”, insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Delivery outside Inpatient Facilities, as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-07-03
On Compliance of Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 5.5. and Paragraph 10 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with Article 105 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law
Joined
SIA "Autofavorīts"
07.03.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 5.5. and Paragraph 10 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No. 331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-material Losses Caused to a Person" with Article 105 of the Satversme and Para 1 of Article 15(1) of Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law

Combined case: 2014-06-03

Case No 2014-06-03
On Compliance of Para 7 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No.331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-Material Losses Caused to Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 1 of Section 15(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Motor Vehicles Law
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Civillietu departaments
29.12.2014.

31.12.2014.

On Compliance of Para 7 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 May 2005 No.331 "Regulation on the Amount of Insurance Indemnity and the Procedure for Calculating it for Non-Material Losses Caused to Person" with the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 1 of Section 15(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Motor Vehicles Law

Case No 2014-05-01
On Compliance of Section 16(4) of Law On State Pensions (in the Wording, which was in Force from 7 January 1997 to 30 September 2013, and in the Wording of 17 July 2013), Insofar it Applies to the Formula for Recalculating the Disability Pension if the Disability Group is Changed, if the Recipient of the Disability Pension Prior to the Change of the Disability Group Had Been an Employee and Had Made Social Insurance Contributions, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
11.12.2014.

16.12.2014.

On Compliance of Section 16(4) of Law On State Pensions (in the Wording, which was in Force from 7 January 1997 to 30 September 2013, and in the Wording of 17 July 2013), Insofar it Applies to the Formula for Recalculating the Disability Pension if the Disability Group is Changed, if the Recipient of the Disability Pension Prior to the Change of the Disability Group Had Been an Employee and Had Made Social Insurance Contributions, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Disability Pension

Case No 2014-04-03
On Compliance of Para 55 and Para 56 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 18 June 2013 No. 221 "The Binding Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Culture and Recreation Park "Mežaparks"", as well its Annex No. 1 "The Planned (Permitted) Use of the Territory", Insofar They Apply to the Planned (Permitted) Use of the Immovable Property at 10 Pāvu Street, Riga (Cadastre No. 0100 095 0003) with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "NIF Zemes īpašumi"
10.10.2014.

14.10.2014.

On Compliance of Para 55 and Para 56 of the Riga City Council Binding Regulation of 18 June 2013 No. 221 "The Binding Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Culture and Recreation Park "Mežaparks"", as well its Annex No. 1 "The Planned (Permitted) Use of the Territory", Insofar They Apply to the Planned (Permitted) Use of the Immovable Property at 10 Pāvu Street, Riga (Cadastre No. 0100 095 0003) with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2014-03-01
On Compliance of Section 15(1) of Law On Election of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, Insofar it Does Not Allow Associations of Electors to Submit Lists of Candidates in Municipalities Where the Number of Residents Exceeds 5,000 and in Cities, with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Rihards Pētersons, Jana Simanovska, Uldis Kronblūms un Kārlis Vilciņš
05.02.2015.

06.02.2015.

On Compliance of Section 15(1) of Law On Election of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, Insofar it Does Not Allow Associations of Electors to Submit Lists of Candidates in Municipalities Where the Number of Residents Exceeds 5,000 and in Cities, with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Candidates of Associations of Electors at the Local Government Election

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 15 (1) of the Law on Elections of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, insofar it does not allow associations of electors to submit lists of candidates in municipalities where the number of resident exceeds 5 000 and cities, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-02-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law with the First Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Svetlana Ovčiņņikova
13.06.2014.

17.06.2014.

On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law with the First Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Deposit Guarantee Fund

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2014-01-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of Law On Residential Tenancy with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Didzis Azanda
06.01.2014.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of Law On Residential Tenancy with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-17-01

Case No 2013-21-03
On Compliance of Para 4.1 and Para 15 of the Binding Regulations of 19 June 2007 of the Riga City Council "Public Order Regulations in Riga" with the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
SIA "Irideja3"
12.12.2014.

16.12.2014.

On Compliance of Para 4.1 and Para 15 of the Binding Regulations of 19 June 2007 of the Riga City Council "Public Order Regulations in Riga" with the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme

Case No 2013-20-03
On Compliance of Para 4.3 and Para 4.4 of the Binding Regulations of 8 July 2008 of the Riga City Council No. 125 "On Taking Care of Riga City Territory and Maintenance of Buildings" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Uldis Kaldovskis
06.11.2014.

10.11.2014.

On Compliance of Para 4.3 and Para 4.4 of the Binding Regulations of 8 July 2008 of the Riga City Council No. 125 "On Taking Care of Riga City Territory and Maintenance of Buildings" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Taking Care of the Territory Adjacent to Property

Case No 2013-19-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 30 May 2013 by the Council of Pāvilosta District No.3 "On the Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta District for 2012-2024. Rules on the Use of Territory and Construction, and Graphic Part," Insofar it Pertains to Zaļkalna Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Pāvilosta pelēkā kāpa" and to the Part of Akmeņrags Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Biedrība "Zemes draugi"
09.10.2014.

10.10.2014.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 30 May 2013 by the Council of Pāvilosta District No.3 "On the Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta District for 2012-2024. Rules on the Use of Territory and Construction, and Graphic Part," Insofar it Pertains to Zaļkalna Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Pāvilosta pelēkā kāpa" and to the Part of Akmeņrags Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Spatial Plan of Pāvilosta

Case No 2013-18-01
On Compliance of the Sixth Sentence of Section 56.3(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Mārtiņš Ēcis
10.06.2014.

13.06.2014.

On Compliance of the Sixth Sentence of Section 56.3(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Non-appealability of a Decision by the Prison Administration

Constitutional Court held to recognise the sixth sentence in Section 563 (3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-17-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of the Law On Residential Tenancy with Section 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Rīgas apgabaltiesa
07.07.2014.

10.07.2014.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of the Law On Residential Tenancy with Section 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Purchase does not Break the Lease

Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding Didzis Kalniņš’ claim (Application No. 230/2013).
2. To recognise the first sentence of Section 8 of the law “On Residential Tenancy” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-16-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jērans Hartmans (Göran Hartmann)
07.10.2013.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-14-01

Case No 2013-15-01
On Compliance of the Words "joining in trade unions" of Section 49(1) of Border Guard Law with Article 102 and the Second Sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
23.04.2014.

28.04.2014.

On Compliance of the Words "joining in trade unions" of Section 49(1) of Border Guard Law with Article 102 and the Second Sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Border Guards' Trade Union

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words “join into trade unions” in the first part of Section 49 of Border Guard Law as being incompatible with the second sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-14-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Dainis Rozenfelds
06.11.2013.

08.11.2013.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Right to Refuse Initiation of Cassation Proceedings

Case No 2013-13-01
On Compliance of Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
19.03.2014.

21.03.2014.

On Compliance of Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Compensation for Damages Caused by Animals under Special Protection

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on Conservation of Species and Biotopes with regard to Ltd. “Sātiņi-S” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date of its adoption.

Case No 2013-12-01
On Compliance of Section of 43.2 of Road Traffic Law, Insofar it Affects the Rights of the Vehicle Owner in Administrative Violations Record-keeping, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Inese Nikuļceva
24.04.2014.

28.04.2014.

On Compliance of Section of 43.2 of Road Traffic Law, Insofar it Affects the Rights of the Vehicle Owner in Administrative Violations Record-keeping, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Penalty for Violating the Parking Rules

Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not provide for the right to contest and appeal against a report-notification to a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules were violated, as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not provide for the right to contest and appeal against a report-notification to a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules were violated, with respect to Inese Nikuļceva as being incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 December 2011.
3. To prescribe that until the moment, when the legislator has ensured compatibility of Section 432 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it affects the rights of a vehicle owner in record-keeping regarding an administrative violation, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the fundamental rights of a vehicle owner, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment when parking rules have been violated, established in this Article shall be ensured by granting to him the same right to contest and appeal against the report-notification as the one envisaged for the driver of the vehicle.

Case No 2013-11-01
On Compliance of Section 246 (2) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Igors Jegorovs
03.04.2014.

07.04.2014.

On Compliance of Section 246 (2) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Procedure for Receiving Information prior to the Application of Detention

Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case.

Case No 2013-10-05
On Compliance of the Order of 8 February 2013 by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development No. 67 "On Suspending Binding Regulation of 11 October 2012 by Jūrmala City Council No. 42 "On Approval of the Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Building of Jūrmala City" in the Part" Regarding the Land Unit with Cadastre Registration No. 1300 002 1202 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of State Administration Structure Law, Section 26(1) of Spatial Development Planning Law and Section 49(1) of Law On Local Governments
Adjudicated
Jūrmalas pilsētas dome
05.11.2013.

07.11.2013.

On Compliance of the Order of 8 February 2013 by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development No. 67 "On Suspending Binding Regulation of 11 October 2012 by Jūrmala City Council No. 42 "On Approval of the Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Building of Jūrmala City" in the Part" Regarding the Land Unit with Cadastre Registration No. 1300 002 1202 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of State Administration Structure Law, Section 26(1) of Spatial Development Planning Law and Section 49(1) of Law On Local Governments

Case short name: Nature Parks

Case No 2013-09-01
On Compliance of the Words in Section 21 (2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code "if the Fine Intended for it Does Not Exceed 30 lats" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
19.11.2013.

21.11.2013.

On Compliance of the Words in Section 21 (2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code "if the Fine Intended for it Does Not Exceed 30 lats" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Release from Administrative Liability in the Case of a Petty Violation

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words of Section 21(2) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code “if the fine intended for it does not exceed thirty lats” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-08-01
On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "VK Estate", Dzintars Abuls un Velta Lazda
09.01.2014.

13.01.2014.

On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Protest

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 483 and Section 484 of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-07-0103
On the Compliance of the Third Part of Section 567 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does Not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff from the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt from Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure for Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Dana Galzone un Lilija Solovjova
26.03.2013.
-
-
-

-

On the Compliance of the Third Part of Section 567 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does Not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff from the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt from Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure for Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2012-22-0103

Case No 2013-06-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 23.1(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
18.12.2013.

20.12.2013.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 23.1(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The National Referendum III

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 231(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative as being compatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Case No 2013-05-01
On Compliance of Section 22(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative (in the Wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which Enters into Force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
11.Saeimas deputāti: Andrejs Elksniņš, Jānis Urbanovičs, Irina Cvetkova, Valērijs Agešins, Boriss Cilevičs, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Igors Pimenovs, Jeļena Lazareva, Dmitrijs Rodionovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Ivans Ribakovs, Ivars Zariņš, Aleksandrs Sakovskis, Jānis Tutins, Artūrs Rubiks, Vitālijs Orlovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Ņikita Ņikiforovs un Sergejs Potapkins
12.02.2014.

14.02.2014.

On Compliance of Section 22(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative (in the Wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which Enters into Force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The National Referendum IV

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 22(1) (in the wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which enters into force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-04-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 33(3) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
SIA "Gardie Visdari"
07.02.2014.

11.02.2014.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 33(3) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme

Case short name: Compensation of Costs Related to Conducting a Matter

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 of Section 33(3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-03-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "Arkolat"
28.02.2013.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2013-02-01

Case No 2013-02-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Grāmatrūpniecības arodu savienība
21.10.2013.

23.10.2013.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Right to Refuse Initiation of Legal Proceedings

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 2 of Section 4641 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2013-01-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 3 of Law On the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
08.11.2013.

11.11.2013.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 3 of Law On the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Service Pensions of the Corruption Prevention and Combatting Office

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 3 of Section 3 of the Law on the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, insofar it does not envisage including service in the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of Interior of the Latvian SSR into the service period, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

Case No 2012-26-03
On Compliance of Sub-para 67.1.3 (in the Wording of 28 December 2010) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvās rajona tiesa
28.06.2013.

02.07.2013.

On Compliance of Sub-para 67.1.3 (in the Wording of 28 December 2010) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Reimbursement of Expenditure for Acquisition of Medicines

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 3 of Section 671 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-25-01
On Compliance of Section 138 of Insolvency Law of 1 November 2007 with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Akciju sabiedrība "Danske Bank"
07.10.2013.

10.10.2013.

On Compliance of Section 138 of Insolvency Law of 1 November 2007 with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Bankruptcy Proceedings

Case No 2012-24-03
On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 "Regulations of the Level of the Proficiency in the Official Language and the Procedure of Testing the Level of Language Proficiency for Professional and Craft Duties, for Receiving of Permanent Residence Permit, and Obtaining the Status of Permanent Resident of the European Community, and State Fee for Examination of Skills of the State Language" with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of Official Language Law and Section 31 of Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers
Adjudicated
Nataļja Čehova un Valērijs Kravcovs
07.11.2013.

11.11.2013.

On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 "Regulations of the Level of the Proficiency in the Official Language and the Procedure of Testing the Level of Language Proficiency for Professional and Craft Duties, for Receiving of Permanent Residence Permit, and Obtaining the Status of Permanent Resident of the European Community, and State Fee for Examination of Skills of the State Language" with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of Official Language Law and Section 31 of Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers

Case short name: The Official Language Proficiency of the Members of Local Governments' Councils

Constitutional Court held to recognise Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Knowledge of the Official Language and the Procedures for Examination of the Knowledge of the Official Language for the Performance of Professional Duties and Duties of Office, Receipt of the Permanent Residence Permit and Obtaining of the Status of a Long-term Resident of the European Union and the State Fee for Examination of the Fluency in the Official Language”, insofar it applies to members of local government councils, as compatible with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of the Official Language Law and Section 31 of the Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers.”

Case No 2012-23-01
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 257 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Liene Vegnere
24.10.2013.

25.10.2013.

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 257 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Removal of Vehicles in Administrative Violations Cases

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise the words in the second sentence of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code “[if such administrative violation has been committed, which is provided for in Section 1494, Paragraph seven; Section 1495, Paragraph four or Section 14915 of this Code (except for the violation provided for in Paragraph six) up to the implementation of the fine applied]:
1) with regard to Liene Vegnere, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 14 June 2012;
2) with regard to other vehicle owners (holders indicated in the vehicle registration certificate), who have not committed the administrative violation for which a fine has been imposed and whose vehicles on the day when this Judgement is published are stored by the Provision State Agency, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and invalid as of the date when the decision was adopted in the respective administrative case;
3) with regard to other vehicle owners (holders indicated in the vehicle registration certificate), who have not committed the administrative violation for which a fine has been imposed, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the Judgement by the Constitutional Court is published.
2. To establish the following procedure for implementing the Judgement by the Constitutional Court: the Provision State Agency, on the basis of this Judgement, shall return vehicles in its storage to the owners and holders of vehicles indicated in the registration certificate of a vehicle referred to in subparagraph 1 and 2 of Para 1 in the Substantive Part of this Judgement upon their request, irrespectively of the enforcement of the fine.

Case No 2012-22-0103
On Compliance of Section 567(3) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff From the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt From Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure of Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Daina Priedniece, Andželas Klaģe, Ilze Mālmeistere, Aelitas Triba, Gaida Rutkovska, Sandra Rundele, Sandra Paegle, Valija Baltā, Iveta Kruka, Artis Cerbulis, Zane Filatova, Zane Trasūne, Ilona Kalniņa, Pārsla Bērziņa, Ilze Zēberga un Katrīna Baltalksne
27.06.2013.

28.06.2013.

On Compliance of Section 567(3) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff From the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt From Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure of Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff from the State Budget

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 567 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 “Regulation on the amount of expenditure necessary for performing enforcement activities and the procedure for paying it” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2014.

Case No 2012-21-01
On Compliance of Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 "Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" with Article 1 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Māris Ciniņš
12.06.2013.

14.06.2013.

On Compliance of Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 "Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" with Article 1 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Length of Holidays of Officials with Special Service Ranks

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 “Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-20-03
On Compliance of Para 407.16.3, 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The Graphic Part and the Regulation on the Use of the Territory and Building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Nygaard International"
05.04.2013.

08.04.2013.

On Compliance of Para 407.16.3, 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The Graphic Part and the Regulation on the Use of the Territory and Building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Spatial Plan of Aizpute Region

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The graphic part and the regulation on the use of the territory and building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
2. To terminate legal proceedings with regard to compliance of Para 407.16.3 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The graphic part and the regulation on the use of the territory and building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Case No 2012-19-01
On Compliance of Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jeļena Līne
03.10.2012.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2012-17-01

Case No 2012-18-01
On Compliance of the Words "if the Taxpayer Agrees to the Additional Amount of Estimated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment [Including a Late Charge That is Calculated for the Period of Tax Payment Delay Starting From the Following Day After the Setting in of the Term of Payment of the Tax up to the Starting Date of a Tax Audit] and, Within 30 Days as From the Day when a Decision of the Tax Administration on Results of the Tax Audit is Taken, Pays the Total Sum of Calculated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment into the Budget at the Amount of 15 Per cent of the Basic Tax Debt" in Section  33.3(1) of Law on Taxes and Fees, in the Wording that was Effective Until 9 November 2011, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
15.04.2013.

16.04.2013.

On Compliance of the Words "if the Taxpayer Agrees to the Additional Amount of Estimated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment [Including a Late Charge That is Calculated for the Period of Tax Payment Delay Starting From the Following Day After the Setting in of the Term of Payment of the Tax up to the Starting Date of a Tax Audit] and, Within 30 Days as From the Day when a Decision of the Tax Administration on Results of the Tax Audit is Taken, Pays the Total Sum of Calculated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment into the Budget at the Amount of 15 Per cent of the Basic Tax Debt" in Section  33.3(1) of Law on Taxes and Fees, in the Wording that was Effective Until 9 November 2011, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Reduction of a Fine in Tax Matters

Constitutional Court held that with respect to cases still under judicial review to recognise the words included in Section 333 (1) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” “if the taxpayer agrees to the additional amount of estimated tax, fee or other State-established payment [including a late charge that is calculated for the period of tax payment delay starting from the following day after the setting in of the term of payment of the tax up to the starting date of a tax audit] and, within 30 days as from the day when a decision of tax administration on results of the tax audit is received, pays the total sum of calculated tax, fee or other State-established payment into the budget at the amount of 15 per cent of the basic tax debt” in the wording that was effective before 8 November 2011, incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-17-01
On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2 )of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
"Yelverton Investments B.V.", "IAG Industrieanlagen GmbH", SIA "IAG" un "Yelverton Investment B.V."
09.11.2012.

13.11.2012.

On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2 )of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Subject of a Claim

Case No 2012-16-01
On Compliance of Section 86 (3) of Law On Judicial Power with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jānis Neimanis
10.05.2013.

13.05.2013.

On Compliance of Section 86 (3) of Law On Judicial Power with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Prohibition for Judges to be Members of Political Parties

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 86 (3) of the law “On Judicial Power” compatible with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-15-01
On Compliance of the Third, Fifth, Seventh and the Eighth Part of Section 43.6 of Road Traffic Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
28.03.2013.

02.04.2013.

On Compliance of the Third, Fifth, Seventh and the Eighth Part of Section 43.6 of Road Traffic Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Speed Cameras

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 43 6 of Road Traffic Law, insofar it does not envisage the right to contest and appeal the report-decision to the owner (possessor) of a mechanical vehicle, who has not been the driver of the vehicle at the moment of committing the violation, which was recorded by technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as incompatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 October 2013, unless the legislator has improved the regulation envisaged by the legal acts in conformity with the instructions included in this Judgement.
2. To recognise Section 436 of the Road Traffic Law, insofar it regulates recording the violations of road traffic rules with technical means (photo or video equipment), without stopping the vehicle, as well as regulation on applying and enforcing the penalty, in the remaining part as compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To establish that until the moment the deficiencies of the aforementioned legal regulation are rectified, the fundamental rights envisaged in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia of the persons referred to in Para 1 of the part of Ruling of this Judgement, shall be ensured by granting to them the same rights to contest and appeal the report-decision, which have been envisaged to the driver of the vehicle, who at the moment of recording the violation with technical means (photo and video equipment, without stopping the vehicle, was driving the vehicle.

Case No 2012-14-03
On Compliance of Para 84.1 and 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
11. Saeimas deputāti: Vitālijs Orlovs, Sergejs Potapkins, Boriss Cilevičs, Igors Zujevs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Marjana Ivanova - Jevsejeva, Valērijs Agešins, Ivans Ribakovs, Dmitrijs Rodionovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Viktors Jakovļevs, Ivars Zariņš, Ivans Klementjevs, Jānis Tutins, Aleksandrs Sakovskis, Igors Meļņikovs, Mihails Zemļinskis, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Jānis Urbanovičs un Raimonds Rubiks
09.04.2013.

10.04.2013.

On Compliance of Para 84.1 and 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Reimbursement of Expenditure for Acquisition of Medicines

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 841 and the first and the second sentence of Para 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment” compatible with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
2. To terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of the third sentence in Para 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment par” with Article 91 and Article 11 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-13-01
On Compliance of Section 483 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to Submit a Protest, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
"Yelverton Investments B.V.", "IAG Industrieanlagen GmbH", SIA "IAG" un "Yelverton Investment B.V."
14.05.2013.

15.05.2013.

On Compliance of Section 483 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to Submit a Protest, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Protest

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 483 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it establishes the right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to submit a protest (in the wording, which was in force until 1 January 2013) incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) the cases, which have been initiated following a protest submitted by the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases, shall be heard by an expanded composition of the Senate, ensuring to persons the right to an impartial court guaranteed by Article 92 of the Satversme.

Case No 2012-12-01
On Compliance of the Words "up to 31 December 2011" of Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91. and 109. of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
11. Saeimas deputāti: Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Igors Zujevs, Irina Cvetkova, Ivans Klementjevs, Marjana Ivanova Jevsejeva, Jānis Ādamsons, Boriss Cilevičs, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Ņikita Ņikiforovs, Vladimirs Reskājs, Raimonds Rubiks, Sergejs Potapkins, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Viktors Jakovļevs, Valērijs Agešins, Igors Pimenovs, Artūrs Rubiks
13.02.2013.

15.02.2013.

On Compliance of the Words "up to 31 December 2011" of Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91. and 109. of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Supplementary Payment to a Pension

Constitutional Court held to recognise the words and numbers in Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of the law “On State Pensions” “until 31 December 2011” as being compatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-11-01
On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Leons Cēbergs
12.02.2013.

14.02.2013.

On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Right to Work as a Teacher

Case No 2012-10-01
On Compliance of the Words "but not Later than within Five Years after Coming into Effect of the Unlawful Administrative Act Issued by the Institution or the Date of having Performed the Illicit Factual Action" of Section 17 of Law On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
11.12.2012.

13.12.2012.

On Compliance of the Words "but not Later than within Five Years after Coming into Effect of the Unlawful Administrative Act Issued by the Institution or the Date of having Performed the Illicit Factual Action" of Section 17 of Law On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Compensation of Losses Caused by State Institutions

Case No 2012-09-01
On Compliance of Sub-para1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions insofar as It Applies to Invalidity Pension Recalculation Formula in Case of Change of the Invalidity Group Provided that the Beneficiary of Invalidity Pension before the Change of the Invalidity Group was an Employee or Made Social Contributions, with Article 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
31.01.2013.

01.02.2013.

On Compliance of Sub-para1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions insofar as It Applies to Invalidity Pension Recalculation Formula in Case of Change of the Invalidity Group Provided that the Beneficiary of Invalidity Pension before the Change of the Invalidity Group was an Employee or Made Social Contributions, with Article 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Disability Pension

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 16(1) of transitional provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar as it applies to disability pension recalculation formula in case of change of the disability group provided that the beneficiary of disability pension before the change of the disability group was an employee or made social contributions at least for three years incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme and invalid as of 1 October 2013, 2. To recognise Para 16(1) of transitional provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar as it applies to disability pension recalculation formula in case of change of the disability group provided that the beneficiary of disability pension before the change of the disability group was an employee or made social contributions at least for three years incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia with regard to Uldis Strautkalns and other persons, who have started defending their infringed rights with general legal remedies, invalid as of the date of its adoption.

Case No 2012-08-01
Adjudicated
Nauris Durevskis
25.09.2012.

27.09.2012.

Case short name: Appealing the Dismissal of an Insolvency Administrator

Case No 2012-07-01
On Compliance of Section 179 (1) of Credit Institutions Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 179 (2) of Credit Institutions Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Santa Anča, Jevgēnija Dimpere, Ina Inkēna un Raimonds Pauls
01.03.2013.

04.03.2013.

On Compliance of Section 179 (1) of Credit Institutions Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 179 (2) of Credit Institutions Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Insolvency of a Credit Institution

Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 179(1) of the Credit Institution Law as compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to terminate legal proceedings in the part of the case regarding the compliance of Section 179(2) of the Credit Institution Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.

Case No 2012-06-01
On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
A/s "Kālija parks"
01.11.2012.

02.11.2012.

On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Subject of a Claim

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128(1) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2012-05-01
On Compliance of Section 141 (1), Insofar as It Fails to Provide the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint for a Decision Rejecting an Application on Securing of a Claim and a Decision Rejecting an Application on Revocation of the Security of a Claim, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
A/s "Swedbank"
29.10.2012.

31.10.2012.

On Compliance of Section 141 (1), Insofar as It Fails to Provide the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint for a Decision Rejecting an Application on Securing of a Claim and a Decision Rejecting an Application on Revocation of the Security of a Claim, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Appeal in the Case of Securing a Claim

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 141(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar as it fails to provide the right to submit an ancillary complaint for a decisions satisfying an application on revocation of the security of a claim, as compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme.

Case No 2012-04-03
On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of 30 March 2012 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 311 "Provisions Regarding Number of Members of the Board of State or Local Government Capital Companies and Remuneration of a Member of the Council or the Board, a Representative of a Local Government Shareholder and the Chief Employee" with Section 96 (2) of Law On State and Local Government Capital Shares and Companies and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Edvīns Bērziņš, Uģis Magonis, Aivars Strakšas un Ēriks Šmuksts
08.11.2012.

13.11.2012.

On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of 30 March 2012 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 311 "Provisions Regarding Number of Members of the Board of State or Local Government Capital Companies and Remuneration of a Member of the Council or the Board, a Representative of a Local Government Shareholder and the Chief Employee" with Section 96 (2) of Law On State and Local Government Capital Shares and Companies and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Setting the Remuneration in State Capital Companies

Case No 2012-03-01
On Compliance of Section 11 (1) and Section 25 (1) of Law On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
11. Saeimas deputāti: Raivis Dzintars, Kārlis Krēsliņš, Raivis Blumfelds, Vineta Poriņa, Inese Laizāne, Ilmārs Latkovskis, Romāns Naudiņš, Jānis Dombrava, Iveta Grigule, Einārs Cilinskis, Dāvis Stalts, Ināra Mūrniece, Dzintars Kudums, Imants Parādnieks, Ilma Čepāne, Dzintars Zaķis, Edvards Smiltēns, Lolita Čigāne, Ojārs Ēriks Kalniņš, Arvils Ašeradens, Jānis Reirs, Janīna Kursīte-Pakule, Ina Druviete, Rasma Kārkliņa, Andris Buiķis, Ingmārs Čaklais, Inguna Rībena, Ainars Latkovskis, Atis Lejiņš un Dzintars Rasnačs
19.12.2012.

20.12.2012.

On Compliance of Section 11 (1) and Section 25 (1) of Law On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The National Referendum II

Constitutional Court held to terminate judicial proceedings in the Case.

Case No 2012-02-0106
On Compliance of the Words "and a fine in accordance with Law On Taxes and Fees" of Section 33 (5) of Law On Excise Duties with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
18.10.2012.

23.10.2012.

On Compliance of the Words "and a fine in accordance with Law On Taxes and Fees" of Section 33 (5) of Law On Excise Duties with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Constitutional Court held to recognize the words “and fine in accordance with the Law on Taxes and Fees” in Section 33(5) and Section 33(7) of the law “On Excise Duty” compatible with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Case No 2012-01-01
On Compliance of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Waste Management Law, insofar as it Applies to Contracts Entered into not Applying the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement or in Non-Compliance with the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement, with Article 1 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
06.12.2012.

11.12.2012.

On Compliance of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Waste Management Law, insofar as it Applies to Contracts Entered into not Applying the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement or in Non-Compliance with the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement, with Article 1 of the Satversme

Case short name: The Waste Management

Constitutional Court held to recognise the first sentence of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions in the Waste Management Law, insofar it applies to contracts, which have been concluded without applying or in on-compliance with the regulatory enactments on public procurement, as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2013.

Case No 2011-20-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of Law On State Social Benefits with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Andrejs Klišins
21.06.2012.

22.06.2012.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of Law On State Social Benefits with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Full State Support

Constitutional Court held to recognise Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of the Law on State Social Allowances as compatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-21-01
On Compliance of Section 8 (2) of Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
06.06.2012.

07.06.2012.

On Compliance of Section 8 (2) of Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Personal Losses

Constitutional Court held:
1. The word “only” of Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions do not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared as null and void as from the date of its adoption.
2. Section 8 (2) of the Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions shall be applied by analogically applying the list of non-material rights and interests included in the words “or other non-material rights or interest protected by law” included in the first paragraph of the same section.

Case No 2011-19-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 6 (2) of Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
07.06.2012.

12.06.2012.

On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 6 (2) of Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Compensation for Microreserve, the Black Storks

Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, insofar as it envisages the requirement that the title to property must be registered in the Land Register prior to the establishment of restriction on forestry activities as incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, insofar as it envisages the requirement that the title to property must be registered in the Land Register prior to the establishment of restriction on forestry activities with regard to Sandis Cīrulis and other persons, who have initiated judicial proceedings for the protection of their fundamental rights infringed by Para 4 of Section 6(2) of the Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves, incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date of its adoption.

Case No 2011-18-01
On Compliance of Section 16.2 (4) and Section 19 (5) of Law On Budget and Financial Management with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valsts kontroles padome
08.06.2012.

12.06.2012.

On Compliance of Section 16.2 (4) and Section 19 (5) of Law On Budget and Financial Management with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Budget of Independent Institutions

Case No 2011-17-03
On Compliance of Para 3 and Para 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof" with Article 64, Article 105 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Biedrības "Latvijas Izpildītāju un producentu apvienība", "Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra / Latvijas Autoru apvienība", "Latvijas Kinoproducentu asociācija" un "Latvijas Profesionālo aktieru apvienība".
02.05.2012.

03.05.2012.

On Compliance of Para 3 and Para 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof" with Article 64, Article 105 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Data Carriers

Constitutional Court held that Section 3 and 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 “Regulations regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof” fails to comply with Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall become invalid as on 1 November 2012 if the Cabinet of Ministers would fail to reassess validity of the list of blank tapes and equipment based on changes introduced by technology development according to the authorization established in Section 34 of the Copyright Law.

Case No 2011-15-01
On Compliance of Sub-Para "c" of Para 19 of Section 9(1) of Law On Personal Income Tax (in the Wording of the Law of 22  November 2001) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
13.12.2011.

15.12.2011.

On Compliance of Sub-Para "c" of Para 19 of Section 9(1) of Law On Personal Income Tax (in the Wording of the Law of 22  November 2001) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Personal Income Tax (Sale of Property)

Case No 2011-16-01
On Compliance of Section 62 (1) of Insolvency Law and Section 363.2 (2) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the Court to Release Persons from Deposit Payment, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Rīgas apgabaltiesa
20.04.2012.

24.04.2012.

On Compliance of Section 62 (1) of Insolvency Law and Section 363.2 (2) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the Court to Release Persons from Deposit Payment, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Insolvency Deposit

Constitutional Court held to recognise the norms of Section 62(1) of the Insolvency Law and Section 3632 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar as these apply to employees, the only legal remedy of whom is declaration of the employer insolvent, incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-14-03
On Compliance of Sub-para 3.1 5 and Para 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" and Para 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
03.05.2012.

08.05.2012.

On Compliance of Sub-para 3.1 5 and Para 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" and Para 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Residents

Constitutional Court held to recognise Subparagraph 3.1 5 and Section 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Posting of Residents and Funding of Residency" and Section 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Posting of Residents and Funding of Residency " as compatible with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-13-01
On Compliance of the Words "and the Annual Fee for the Land Lease shall not Exceed 5% from the Cadastral Value of the Land" of the Note to Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
A/s "Pilsētas zemes dienests"
27.01.2012.

31.01.2012.

On Compliance of the Words "and the Annual Fee for the Land Lease shall not Exceed 5% from the Cadastral Value of the Land" of the Note to Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Land Reform in Cities

Case No 2011-12-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Social Protection of the Participants of the Chernobyl Nuclear Clean-up and Persons who Suffered as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
01.03.2012.

06.03.2012.

On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Social Protection of the Participants of the Chernobyl Nuclear Clean-up and Persons who Suffered as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Chernobyl Pension

Case No 2011-11-01
On Compliance of Sub-programme 23.00.00 of Law On the State Budget 2011 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
10.Saeimas deputāti: Ainārs Šlesers, Edgars Zalāns, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Ivans Ribakovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Ņikita Ņikiforovs, Valērijs Kravcovs, Aleksejs Burunovs, Jānis Tutins, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Dmitrijs Rodionovs, Imants Jānis Bekešs, Andris Šķēle, Māris Kučinskis, Guntis Ulmanis, Juris Silovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Valentīns Grigorjevs un Igors Meļņikovs
03.02.2012.

07.02.2012.

On Compliance of Sub-programme 23.00.00 of Law On the State Budget 2011 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The State Road Fund

Constitutional Court held to declare the subprogram 23.00.00 of the Annex 4 to the Law “On the State Budget for 2011” “Itemised List of State Basic Budget Revenue and Expenditure according to Programs and Subprograms” compatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-10-01
On Compliance of Section 3 (7), Section 4 (2) and Section 16 (1), (2) and (3), Insofar as They Apply to Judges (Land Registry Judges) and Public Prosecutors, Section 4 (9), Section 6.1, Section 6.2, the First Sentence of Section 14 (1), Section 15 (7), of Law On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Self-government Authorities and Section 8.4 of Transitional Provisions Thereof, as well as Compliance of Section 89.11 Para 9.1 of Law On Judicial Power, Para 4 and Para 10 of Law "Amendments to the Law On Judicial Power", and Section 2 and Section 5 (Regarding Deleting Section 55 (3)), Section 6 (Regarding Deleting Section 57.1 (4), Section 57.2 and Section 57.5) of 16 December 2010 Law "Amendments to the Office of the Prosecutor Law)" with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
"Dina Suipe, Līga Hāzenfuse, Aija Reitupe, Ojārs Priedītis, Mārtiņš Birkmanis,Sandija Audzere, Inga Putra, Dzintars Melbārdis, Lauma Paegļkalna, LolitaAndersone, Kristīne Kalvāne-Radziņa, Ilona Petrovska, Dace Ābele, IlzeFreimane, Roze Paegle, Māris Šļakota, Staņislavs Linkevičs, Solvita Sērdiene,Stella Blūma, Agija Kudrēviča, Sandra Gintere, Valda Zommere, DzintraAmerika, Līvija Slica, Karina Krastiņa, Irina Kaļiņina, Ilze Amona, KasparsBerķis, Santa Liniņa, Anita Šteinberga, Māris Birzgalis, Linda Vīnkalna,Margarita Osmane, Zita Kupce, Gunta Viļumsone, Iveta Risberga, SanitaRūtena-Laizāne, Guna Krieviņa, Marita Šalto, Maija Miltiņa, Alfs Baumanis,Marika Bebriša, Sanita Rūtenberga, Ieva Reikmane, Inese Strelča, BaibaJakobsone, Signe Vilne, Jolanta Zaškina, Ingrīda Bite, Anita Dzērve, IneseRubina, Baiba Ozoliņa, Irēna Krastiņa, Dace Ķeire, Signe Dektere, SkaidrīteHrebtova, Diāna Dzērvniece, Ināra Jankēviča, Ziedonis Strazds, Santa Sondare,Elita Stelte-Auziņa, Agnese Veita, Iluta Kovaļova, Dzintra Zemitāne, SanitaStrakše, Iveta Meldere, Viktors Prudņikovs, Ilze Apse, Viesturs Gaidukēvičs,Anna Mihailova, Kristīne Vanaga, Inese Siliņeviča, Lauma Šteinerte, SantaBernharde, Žanete Žimante, Inta Rubene, Maruta Bite, Ināra Strautiņa, MadaraĀbele, Irīna Makovska, Olita Blūmfelde, Ieva Čudina, Vita Puškundze, JurisKokins, Iveta Kromāne, Kaspars Rinčs, Jānis Sauša, Inta Šteine, Laila Fogele,Dace Ruško, Nellija Paņkiva, Daiga Danšina, Irina Freimane, Iveta Kniploka,Judīte Mauliņa, Iveta Salaka, Didzis Aktumanis, Arnis Lapiņš, Indra Pelnēna,Maija Jansone, Sandra Briķe, Renars Jūrmalis, Aija Pomerance, Iveta Pūce,Jozs Darģis, Inga Kadiķe, Lolita Laure, Renāte Krasovska, Elita Grigoroviča,Ārija Ulaseviča, Ērika Gulbe, Valdis Muižnieks, Lilita Bārbele, VladislavsČeraps, Anna Knodze, Viktors Trušels, Brigita Baltraite, Adrija Kasakovska,Rita Bruce, Aelita Vancāne, Inese Mudele, Jolanta Bebriša, Sarmīte Daukšte,Lilija Kanaviņa, Inga Zālīte, Rinalda Liepiņa, Elga Sudāre, Kornēlija Poča,Dainis Pēteris Kļaviņš, Gunta Rezgoriņa, Ilze Lazdiņa, Dzintra Apine, DaceBlūma, Anita Bērziņa, Daina Ročāne, Līga Karlsone, Sandra Eglīte, OlgaMacpane, Ilona Rudzīte, Sarmīte Lucava, Igors Kligačs, Ilze Fišere, MaijaAndersone, Ineta Riekstiņa, Valija Grebežniece, Sarmīte Inberga, IvetaAndžāne, Irina Bogdanova, Lilita Kosoja, Marina Ribina, Indra Tikuma,Visvaldis Sprudzāns, Inese Skudra, Inese Belicka, Svetlana Maršāne, ElmārsLenšs, Ramiro Grandāns, Silva Reinholde, Vineta Ramba, Rita Vīva, AstraKlaiše, Zaiga Zaiceva, Biruta Ķeire, Laima Kraule, Linda Vēbere, IngrīdaJunghāne, Ināra Rozīte, Sandra Mertena, Vineta Vaiteika, Kārlis Stārasts,Krists Līcis, Sandra Strence, Skaidrīte Buivide, Ligita Gavare, Daiga Vilsone,Juris Freimanis, Dzintra Zvaigznekalna-Žagare, Inta Jēkabsone, SarmīteVamža, Uldis Danga, Silvija Sēbriņa, Dzintra Balta, Mairita Šķendere, LīgaBlūmiņa, Gunta Ozoliņa, Normunds Riņķis, Sandra Krūmiņa, Gunta Freimane,Inese Grauda, Milda Zelmene, Lidija Pliča, Lelde Grauda, Iveta Bērziņa,Mārtiņš Sviķis, Lauma Volberga, Zane Pētersone, Inta Zaļā, Gvido Ungurs,Ilze Celmiņa, Ilze Ošiņa, Sandra Amola, Ingūna Amoliņa, Iveta Brimerberga,Tamāra Broda, Brigita Būmeistere, Diāna Dumbre, Boriss Geimans, Smaida Gļazere, Rihards Hlevickis, Irīna Jansone, Daiga Kalniņa, Signe Kalniņa,Ligita Kuzmane, Zinaida Lagzdiņa, Irēna Logina, Aina Nicmane, JurisStukāns, Guntars Stūris, Ināra Šteinerte, Žaneta Vēvere, Iveta Vīgante, IneseLaura Zemīte, Ārija Ždanova, Marika Senkāne, Intars Bisters, AnitaČerņavska, Māra Katlapa, Ineta Ozola, Ļubova Kušnire, Inta Lauka, DaceJansone, Valērijs Maksimovs, Ervīns Kušķis, Ludmila Poļakova, AnitaPoļakova, Pēteris Opincāns, Andrejs Lepse, Daina Treija, Jānis Tiltiņš, AivarsUminskis, Vilis Donāns, Rudīte Vīduša, Jānis Neimanis, Andris Guļāns, IntaOrlicka, Lauma Aina Balaša, Odeta Turka, Dina Rīna, Ilze Ieviņa, IevaZabarovska, Inese Trēde, Inese Ziediņa, Teiksma Cīrule, Laila Gulbe, EveritaAncāne, Helmuts Naglis, Antra Tiltiņa, Skaidrīte Temļakova, Evika Klēpe,Sniedze Rūja, Elga Vespere, Ainars Hāns, Rita Briede, Indra Petruhno, AndrejsSirmais, Nadežda Gromova, Svetlana Budovska, Irina Priede, Atis Dzērvēns,Uldis Kursinskis, Ligita Arāja, Ivonna Ašmane, Ilona Živa, RaimondsStalidzāns, Juris Kalvišķis, Dace Siksna, Ieviņa Pickaine, Andis Šķēle, AnitaGrīnhagena, Ilze Ribakova, Gints Voicehovičs, Andrejs Meļņikovs, LolitaPaulāne, Baiba Rozenberga, Māris Salmiņš, Vilhelms Sausiņš, Rita Kravale,Aivars Egle, Baiba Balode, Dace Kunce, Kristīna Sīle, Venita Zalamane,Armīns Reinis, Liene Štauere, Renārs Sladzevskis, Linda Eze, Anda Kleina,Baiba Matuļone, Laila Grigāne, Sarmīte Daubure, Jurijs Besko, LāsmaZebuliņa, Jeļena Aleksejeva, Vija Ļeņova, Kaspars Cakuls, Agrita Valce,Vladimirs Krupskijs, Līga Sudakova, Vita Ozoliņa, Vineta Zvirbule, JūlijaKuzņecova, Ļubova Aņičkina, Irēna Sējāne, Zane Kabuce, Ludmila Orlova,Jānis Zunde, Lolita Ancāne, Evita Masule, Gundars Kārkliņš, Ilona Minajeva,Agnija Zvirgzdiņa, Sandra Daugaviete, Aldis Pundurs, Māris Urbāns, LieneJanuševska, Lita Sakoviča, Lelde Burve, Gaļina Ķapsna, Ruslans Novaks,Vadims Iļasovs, Jānis Ilsteris, Evija Freidenfelde-Sedleniece, MairisMackēvičs, Ivars Brangulis, Gints Bērziņš, Iveta Mētele, Agnis Pormalis, AivisZalužinskis, Viorika Jirgena, Evita Upeniece, Ineta Bebre, Irīna Poļevaja,Ludmila Masļakova, Antoņina Logutova, Ivars Kunigs, Zinaīda Egle, VeltaZaļūksne, Ilga Paegle, Margarita Dolgova, Jānis Ievītis, Vladimirs Zaharovs,Andis Mežsargs, Vita Hutore, Ivo Ivanovs, Gaitis Krieviņš, Daiga Krecu,Jeļena Kaminska, Gunda Kaparšmite, Anželika Merlaja, Aivars Buliņš, AldisĻeļevs, Igors Kobzevs, Alla Skurvide, Ingūna Šnepste, Ramona Bērziņa, JurisRadčenko, Dace Vanaga, Solvita Kristapa, Baiba Duncīte, Armands Bērziņš,Daiga Langina, Guntis Dreija, Regimants Stipins, Salvis Skaistais, InetaFreimane, Aivars Zgirskis, Lada Bogojavļevska, Inga Gavare, Sergejs Noviks,Vineta Žērbele, Signe Silanža, Edgars Bērziņš, Lidija Cīrule, Viktorija Šumska,Ando Skalbe, Rudīte Bilsena, Jānis Omuls, Andrejs Gvozdevs, AleksandrsStepanovs, Zinta Meija, Antra Lūse, Igors Gerasimins, Aleksandrs Černišovs,Gita Biezuma, Zinaida Pavlova, Sondra Ņikitina, Jurijs Stepanovs, IngrīdaGarkalne, Aivars Bergmanis, Māris Leja, Evija Daugule un Ilze Znotiņa."
28.03.2012.

29.03.2012.

On Compliance of Section 3 (7), Section 4 (2) and Section 16 (1), (2) and (3), Insofar as They Apply to Judges (Land Registry Judges) and Public Prosecutors, Section 4 (9), Section 6.1, Section 6.2, the First Sentence of Section 14 (1), Section 15 (7), of Law On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Self-government Authorities and Section 8.4 of Transitional Provisions Thereof, as well as Compliance of Section 89.11 Para 9.1 of Law On Judicial Power, Para 4 and Para 10 of Law "Amendments to the Law On Judicial Power", and Section 2 and Section 5 (Regarding Deleting Section 55 (3)), Section 6 (Regarding Deleting Section 57.1 (4), Section 57.2 and Section 57.5) of 16 December 2010 Law "Amendments to the Office of the Prosecutor Law)" with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Judges' Salaries III

Case No 2011-09-01
On Compliance of Section 9 (4) of Road Traffic Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SE "BTA"
30.01.2012.

01.02.2012.

On Compliance of Section 9 (4) of Road Traffic Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Automobile Registered in a Foreign State

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 9(4) of the Road Traffic Law as compliant with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-08-01
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) of Law on State Funded Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
10. Saeimas deputāti: Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Agešins, Ivans Ribakovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksejs Burunovs, Dmitrijs Rodionovs, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Ņikita Ņikiforovs, Valērijs Kravcovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Jānis Tutins, Artūrs Rubiks, Igors Meļņikovs, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Aleksandrs Sakovskis, Igors Pimenovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Sergejs Dolgopolovs un Valentīns Grigorjevs
25.01.2012.

27.01.2012.

On Compliance of Section 4 (1) of Law on State Funded Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Funded Pensions

Constitutional Court held to recognise Section 4(1) of the Law on State Funded Pensions as compatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme.

Case No 2011-07-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 26 August 2010 by the Council of Pāvilosta County No. 22 "Rules on Using of Construction in the Property at 2E Dzirnavu Street, Pāvilosta, Pāvilosta County" with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Biedrība "Vides aizsardzības klubs"
04.11.2011.

08.11.2011.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 26 August 2010 by the Council of Pāvilosta County No. 22 "Rules on Using of Construction in the Property at 2E Dzirnavu Street, Pāvilosta, Pāvilosta County" with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Binding Regulation of Pāvilosta Regional Council

Case No 2011-06-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13(1) of Insolvency Law, Insofar it Applies to Persons, Who Have Started their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement Set Out in Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies with Regard to Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management and Finance, with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Law.
Joined
Armands Apsāns, Egons Baltgailis, Modris Kalniņš, Mareks Krūcis, Edgars Leimanis, Iverta Lerha-Krūce, Eduards Mazūrs, Juris Mičerevskis, Dzintars Risters, Santa Strode, Olafs Švanks, Arnolds Vende, Jurijs Višņakovs un Leonīds Mohovikovs
06.04.2011.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13(1) of Insolvency Law, Insofar it Applies to Persons, Who Have Started their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement Set Out in Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies with Regard to Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management and Finance, with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Law.

Combined case: 2011-04-01

Case No 2011-05-01
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section39(1) of Public Procurement Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "HansaWorld Latvia"
03.11.2011.

08.11.2011.

On Compliance of Para 6 of Section39(1) of Public Procurement Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Public Procurement

Constitutional Court held:
1) proceedings in the present case insofar as it applies to compliance of Section 39 (1) indent 6 of the Public Procurement Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia shall be terminated;
2) Section 39 (1) indent 6 of the Public Procurement Law insofar as it restricts the rights of applicants and tenderers of procurement procedures that have made all tax payments shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme and become null and void on 1 March 2012.

Case No 2011-04-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13 of Insolvency Law, Insofar It Applies to Persons Who have Started Their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement of Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies Regarding Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management or Finance, and of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Insolvency Law with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Normans Karlsons, Armands Apsāns, Egons Baltgailis, Modris Kalniņš, Mareks Krūcis, Edgars Leimanis, Iverta Lerha-Krūce, Eduards Mazūrs, Juris Mičerevskis, Dzintars Risters, Santa Strode, Olafs Švanks, Arnolds Vende, Jurijs Višņakovs un Leonīds Mohovikovs
22.11.2011.

24.11.2011.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13 of Insolvency Law, Insofar It Applies to Persons Who have Started Their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement of Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies Regarding Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management or Finance, and of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Insolvency Law with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Education of Insolvency Administrators

Constitutional Court held:
1) the words “from 1 January 2017” of the first sentence, the words “from 1 January 2017” of the second sentence and the words “from 1 January 2012” of the third sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Insolvency Law do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme and shall be null and void as from 1 March 2012;
2) Section 13 (1) (2) of the Insolvency Law insofar as it applies to persons who have started working as an insolvency procedure administrator pursuant to the requirement of Section 13 of the Law “On Insolvency of Enterprises and Companies” regarding higher education in economics, management or finance does comply with Article 91 and Article106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia in case if the legislator would amend the terms established in the first, the second and the third sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Insolvency Law before 1 March 2012 by ensuring persons with the possibility to meet the requirement of higher legal education in law within reasonable time frame.

Case No 2011-03-01
On Compliance of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of Law On State Social Insurance with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
10.Saeimas deputāti: Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Valērijs Agešins, Ivans Ribakovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Boriss Cilevičs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Aleksejs Burunovs, Dmitrijs Rodionovs, Aleksandrs Jakimovs, Jānis Ādamsons, Ņikita Ņikiforovs, Valērijs Kravcovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Aleksandrs Sakovskis, Jānis Tutins, Raimonds Rubiks, Igors Zujevs un Valentīns Grigorjevs
19.12.2011.

21.12.2011.

On Compliance of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of Law On State Social Insurance with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Actual Social Insurance Contributions

Constitutional Court held that the second sentence of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of the Law “On State Social Insurance” complies with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2011-02-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 (1) of Law On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
28.11.2011.

01.12.2011.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 (1) of Law On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Land of Abrene

Constitutional Court held:
1. The second sentence of Section 22 (1) of the Law “On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to persons whose ownership right has been restored by grating land of an equivalent value in another administrative territory due to objective reasons shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. The second sentence of Section 22 (1) of the Law “On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to Ms Inta Bogdānova and other persons, whose ownership right has been restored by granting land of an equivalent value in another administrative territory due to objective reasons and who have not been assured performance of cadastral survey of the land due to the fact that they have started litigating shall not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared as null and void as from the date of its adoption.

Case No 2011-01-01
On Compliance of Section 1068 (1) of Civil Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
AS "Pilsētas zemes dienests"
25.10.2011.

28.10.2011.

On Compliance of Section 1068 (1) of Civil Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Joint Ownership

Constitutional Court held that the first part of Section 1068 of the Civil Law does comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-75-01
On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in Republican Cities of Latvia, Insofar It Applies to Land Beneath Apartment Buildings, and of Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Akciju sabiedrība "Pilsētas zemes dienests"
08.02.2011.

10.02.2011.

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

Case short name: The Land Reform and Forced Lease

Case No 2010-74-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 21 April 2010 by the Council of Salacgrīva County No. DL-1/2010 "Spatial Planning for the Immoveable Property "Zivtiņas", Cadastre Reg. No. 66600030167, Salacgrīva County, Liepupe Paris, Tūja" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ieva Krūmiņa, Ieva Bāliņa, Ieva Andersone, Juris Leimanis, Normunds Ignatovs, Maija Lubiņa un Aija Puhlova
12.10.2011.

14.10.2011.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 21 April 2010 by the Council of Salacgrīva County No. DL-1/2010 "Spatial Planning for the Immoveable Property "Zivtiņas", Cadastre Reg. No. 66600030167, Salacgrīva County, Liepupe Paris, Tūja" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Placing the Base Station of a Telecommunications Operator and the Spatial Plan

Case No 2010-73-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Natalija Grevcova
22.11.2010.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-72-01

Case No 2010-72-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ilvars Gudrimovičs
20.10.2011.

21.10.2011.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Rights of Third Persons to Participate in Divorce Cases

Constitutional Court held:
1) legal proceedings in the present matter insofar as it concerns compliance of the first sentence of Section 78 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia shall be terminated;
2) the first sentence of Section 78 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law in conjunction with Section 238 (1) indent 6 of the Civil Procedure Law shall be regarded as compliant with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-71-01
On Compliance of Section 59.5 of Credit Institution Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Amber Trust S.C.A. SICAF-SIF, DCF FUND (II) Baltic States, Firebird Republics Fund, Ltd., Firebird New Russia Fund, Ltd., Firebird Avrora Fund, Ltd., East Capital Asset Management Aktiebolag un East Capital (LUX)
19.10.2011.

21.10.2011.

On Compliance of Section 59.5 of Credit Institution Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Increasing the State's Participation in a Credit Institution

Constitutional Court held that the Section 59.5 of the Credit Institutions Law does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from the fate of publishing of the present judgment.

Case No 2010-70-01
On Compliance of Section 14 (2) and (3) of Law On the Enterprise Income Tax with Article 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Kuldīgas RPB"
20.05.2011.

27.05.2011.

On Compliance of Section 14 (2) and (3) of Law On the Enterprise Income Tax with Article 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 14 (2) and (3) of the Law “On Enterprise Income Tax” does comply with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-69-01
On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Einārs Matjušenoks, Vjačeslavs Aleksejevs, Ilga Apša, Dace Artemjeva, Rita Aumeistare, Aivars Balodis, Tatjana Bļašona, Daina Čaune, Anželika Dinaburgska, Vladimirs Dmitrijevs, Jānis Elsis, Mārīte Grāpe, Bruno Ģīmis, Ilzīte Ignate, Modris Jēkabsons, Ieva Kalniņa-Kūla, Artūrs Keišs, Gunta Kļimoviča, Alda Kozlova, Ineta Kraglika, Juris Kukainis, Lauris Kukainis, Ludmila Kurjanoviča, Diāna Leoke, Biruta Ločmele, Iveta Lopatko, Gatis Lovkins, Inese Mackēviča, Madars Maske, Svetlana Meļķe, Janīna Mēnese, Rudīte Mince, Evita Ozola, Vita Ozola, Inese Ozola, Benita Pommere, Dainis Priedītis, Ilze Pužule, Ilona Rulle, Marija Savenkova, Māra Sekača, Anita Šalna, Ieva Šalna, Ģirts Šnēvels, Talivaldis Tomsons, Sandra Treimane, Ilona Ubeiko, Gunita Udre, Mikus Ulmanis, Jeļena Vaivode, Igors Vanags, Gints Vilks, Romāns Zadorožņijs, Sandija Zaļupe, Zita Zandere, Solvita Zvirbule, Modris Zvirbulis, Siguta Vītola un Aldis Dudelis
10.06.2011.

14.06.2011.

On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Disbursements from the Employee Claims Guarantee Fund

Constitutional Court held:
1) Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer” insofar as they apply to persons whose employer has been recognized as insolvent before 9 July 2009 fail to comply with Article 1 of the Satversme and shall become null and void as from the date of adoption thereof;
2) Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer” comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-67-01
On Compliance of Section 51 (13) Indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mārtiņš Ēcis
09.06.2011.

10.06.2011.

On Compliance of Section 51 (13) Indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Convicted Persons' Right to Receive Remuneration for Work

Constitution Court held that the Section 51 (13) indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code does comply with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-68-01
On Compliance of Section 6(1) of The Saeima Election Law, Insofar It Applies to a Judge, Who Has been Nominated as a Candidate, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
29.03.2011.

31.03.2011.

On Compliance of Section 6(1) of The Saeima Election Law, Insofar It Applies to a Judge, Who Has been Nominated as a Candidate, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Judge's Right to Stand for the Saeima Election

Case No 2010-66-01
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
Joined
Nataļja Smoļska-Krasnostavska
14.10.2010.
-
-
-

-

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: 2010-58-01

Case No 2010-65-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 18 February 2010 by the Council of Grobiņa County No. 62 "Spatial Planning for Immoveable Property "Papardes" in Medze Parish" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Aldis Mežvids, Dzidra Pavāre, Ausma Ieva Stals, Rainer Erker, Santa Siņicina, Roberts Siņicins, Oskars Siņicins, Arvīds Ķēde, Ramona Kraveca, Madars Valdmanis, gunita Skroderēna, Olga Samsonova, Rolands Ekšteins, Mārīte Kūlaine, Mārcis Kūlainis, Baiba Geste, Agris Kūlainis, Jānis Valdmanis un Ainārs Valdmanis
22.09.2010.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 18 February 2010 by the Council of Grobiņa County No. 62 "Spatial Planning for Immoveable Property "Papardes" in Medze Parish" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-54-03

Case No 2010-64-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 16(1) of Law On Identity Documents with the First and the Second Sentence of Article 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
15.06.2011.

17.06.2011.

On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 16(1) of Law On Identity Documents with the First and the Second Sentence of Article 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-63-01
On Compliance of Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, the First Sentence in Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vizma Draveniece
02.09.2010.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, the First Sentence in Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-17-01

Case No 2010-62-03
On Compliance of the Part of Spatial Planning for Stopiņi County, in Accordance with the Territory Marked in Annex 1 to the Planning (Territory Between "Ginteri" and "Eģenovas" Named "Composting Field of Ltd. "Getliņi-2"), with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Žanis Ilsters
14.04.2011.

19.04.2011.

On Compliance of the Part of Spatial Planning for Stopiņi County, in Accordance with the Territory Marked in Annex 1 to the Planning (Territory Between "Ginteri" and "Eģenovas" Named "Composting Field of Ltd. "Getliņi-2"), with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-61-01
On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Olga Nosenko
26.08.2010.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-29-01

Case No 2010-60-01
On Compliance of Section 59.2, Section 59.3, Section 59.4, Section 117 (4) Para 3, Section 173 (4) and Section 185 (1) Prim of the Credit Institutions Law with Article 1, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
9.Saeimas deputāti: Valērijs Agešins, Jānis Urbanovičs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Boriss Cilēvičs, Martijans Bekasovs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Igors Pimenovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Oļegs Deņisovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Ivans Klementjevs, Mihails Zemļinskis, Ivans Ribakovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Jānis Tutins, Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Buhvalovs, Vladimirs Buzajevs un Miroslavs Mitrofanovs
30.03.2011.

31.03.2011.

On Compliance of Section 59.2, Section 59.3, Section 59.4, Section 117 (4) Para 3, Section 173 (4) and Section 185 (1) Prim of the Credit Institutions Law with Article 1, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Transition of a Credit Institution

Constitutional Courtheld:
1) proceedings in respect to compliance of Section 592 (3) of the Credit Institutions Law with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia regarding the principle of an independent democratic state shall be terminated;
2) proceedings in respect to compliance of Section 592, Section 593, Section 594, Section 117 (4) indent 3, Section 173 (4) and Section 185 (1) Prim of the Credit Institutions Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia shall be terminated;
3) Section 592, Section 593, Section 594, Section 117 (4) indent 3, Section 173 (4) and Section 185 (1) Prim of the Credit Institutions Law do comply with Article 1, Article 90, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-59-01
On Compliance of Section 16.1 (3) of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Lilija Ābika un Jānis Ābiks
13.04.2011.

15.04.2011.

On Compliance of Section 16.1 (3) of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Personal Income Tax (Private Pension Funds)

Constitutional Court held that the Section 16.1 (3) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-58-01
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
Adjudicated
Alina Uvarova un Tatjana Uvarova
30.11.2010.

02.12.2012.

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

Case short name: Selling of Pledged Immovable Property

Case No 2010-57-03
On Compliance of Para 1.1 of Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 June 2009 No. 511 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 24 August 2004 No. 740 "Regulation on Grants""with Article 91 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Edgars Ābols un Artūrs Pušmucāns
06.05.2011.

10.05.2011.

On Compliance of Para 1.1 of Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 June 2009 No. 511 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 24 August 2004 No. 740 "Regulation on Grants""with Article 91 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: Grants by Institutions of Education

Case No 2010-56-03
On Compliance of the Part in the Binding Regulation of 24 September 2009 No. 9 by the Council of Pāvilosta County "On Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta County", Consisting of the Graphic Part "Planned (Permitted) Use of Territory" in the Binding Regulation of 27December 2007 by the Council of Saka Parish No. 12 "Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Saka Paris, Saka County", Insofar it Applies to Parts of Zaļkalna Forest to the Parts of Akmeņraga Forest Adjacent to the Nature Protection Zone "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Biedrība "Zemes draugi"
12.05.2011.

13.05.2011.

On Compliance of the Part in the Binding Regulation of 24 September 2009 No. 9 by the Council of Pāvilosta County "On Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta County", Consisting of the Graphic Part "Planned (Permitted) Use of Territory" in the Binding Regulation of 27December 2007 by the Council of Saka Parish No. 12 "Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Saka Paris, Saka County", Insofar it Applies to Parts of Zaļkalna Forest to the Parts of Akmeņraga Forest Adjacent to the Nature Protection Zone "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Spatial Plan of Pāvilosta

Case No 2010-55-0106
On Compliance of Section 7 (5) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well a compliance of the First Sentence of Section 35 (1) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mairis Meimanis
11.05.2011.

13.05.2011.

On Compliance of Section 7 (5) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well a compliance of the First Sentence of Section 35 (1) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case short name: The Legality of Investigatory Operations

Constitutional Court held:
1) Section 7 (5) of the Investigatory Operations Law does comply with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) Section 7 (5) of the Investigatory Operations Law and the first sentence of Section 35 (1) of the Investigatory Operations Law does comply with Article 13 of the European Convention of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
3) the first sentence of Section 35 (1) of the Investigatory Operations Law does comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-54-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 29 September 2009 No. 4 by the Council of Grobiņa County "On Approving the Spatial Plalning of the Former Local Governments Belonging to Grobiņa County", which Approved the Binding Regulations of 4 June 2009 by the Council of Medze Parish No. 3/09 "The Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning for Medze Paris and the Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory", in the Part Establishing a Zone for Harvesting Wind Eenergy within the Territory of Medze Parish, and the Binding Regulations of 18 February 2010 No. 62 "Detail Plan for the Property "Papardes" in Medze Parish" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aldis Mežvids, Dzidra Pavāre, Ilma Rubene, Ausma Ieva Stals, Madars Valdmanis, Ināra Kurše, Veronika Ravdone, Elma Irneste, Goners Voldemārs Indriksons, Velta Reine, Zane Šenkevica, Jānis Midāns, Harijs Šuišels, Valerijs Gucs, Līga Guca, Ēriks Sarma, Gunita Skroderēna, Olga Samsonova, Rolands Ekšteins, Elvīra Saldeniece, Benita Ziemele, Dailis Ziemelis, Ieva Balode, Gunita Peipere, Vija Kaupiņa, Gunārs Magone, Gatis Magone, Edmunds Rubenis, Oskars Siņicins, Ramona Kraveca, Mārīte Kūlaine, Sintija Valdmane, Olita Ozola, Žanis Makužis, Mirjama Makuže un Gunārs Drullis
03.05.2011.

06.05.2011.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 29 September 2009 No. 4 by the Council of Grobiņa County "On Approving the Spatial Plalning of the Former Local Governments Belonging to Grobiņa County", which Approved the Binding Regulations of 4 June 2009 by the Council of Medze Parish No. 3/09 "The Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning for Medze Paris and the Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory", in the Part Establishing a Zone for Harvesting Wind Eenergy within the Territory of Medze Parish, and the Binding Regulations of 18 February 2010 No. 62 "Detail Plan for the Property "Papardes" in Medze Parish" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-53-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 17 December 2009 by the Council of Rucava County No. 41 "Detail Planning for the Immoveable Property Šuķi" (Cad.No. 6452 012 0156, Cad.No. 6452 011 0012), "Skrandas" (Cad.No. 6452 012 0007)" with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Inita Vecbaštika