Search

Filter results

  • Years
  • 30
  • 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
  • 16
  • 8
  • 2
  • 385
  • 226
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 290
  • 94
  • 210
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 318
  • 75
  • 34
  • 210
  • More
Results: 637
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.
In Preparation
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
13.11.2017.
13.04.2018.
-

-

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.

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
In Preparation
Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību „Alcamo”
09.11.2017.
09.04.2018.
-

-

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 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.
In Preparation
08.11.2017.
08.04.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Mārtiņš Kalniņš
07.11.2017.
07.04.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Ēriks Jaunzems
01.11.2017.
01.04.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Tatjana Ždanoka
18.10.2017.
18.03.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Raimonds Bētiņš
28.09.2017.
28.02.2018.
-

-

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

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
In Preparation
Ēriks Osis
25.09.2017.
25.02.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Alvis Hāze
18.09.2017.
18.02.2018.
-

-

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 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.
In Preparation
Svetlana Blohina
04.09.2017.
04.02.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
SIA “Skonto Būve”, SIA “GRIF 1” un SIA “GRF”
09.08.2017.
09.01.2018.
-

-

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 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.
In Preparation
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
03.08.2017.
03.01.2018.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
19.07.2017.
19.12.2017.
-

-

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 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
In Preparation
Soņa Traube (Sonia Traub)
19.07.2017.
19.12.2017.
-

-

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

Case No 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Section 28920 (7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
In Preparation
Aleksejs Stepanovs
16.05.2017.
16.12.2017.
-

-

On Compliance of Section 28920 (7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

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
In Preparation
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
10.05.2017.
10.12.2017.
-

-

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 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
Prepared
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
Prepared
Latvijas Republikas ģenerālprokurors
02.05.2017.
02.10.2017.
-

-

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 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
Prepared
Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
25.04.2017.
25.09.2017.
-

-

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 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
Prepared
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.

-

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 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 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
Prepared
Sanita Bokta - Strautmane
28.03.2017.
28.08.2017.
16.01.2018.

-

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 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
Prepared
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
17.03.2017.
17.10.2017.
23.11.2017.

-

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 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
In Adjudication
Raivis Veinbergs
16.03.2017.
16.08.2017.
25.10.2017.

-

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 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
Prepared
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
10.01.2017.
10.08.2017.
21.11.2017.

-

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 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
Prepared
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
10.01.2017.
10.08.2017.
22.11.2017.

-

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 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.

-

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 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 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 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 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 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.

-

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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
In Adjudication
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
16.02.2016.
16.07.2016.
31.01.2017.

-

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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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 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 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

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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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

Combined case: 2014-11-0103

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 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 2014-28-01
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 2014-26-01
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 2014-29-01
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 2014-25-01
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 2014-23-01
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 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 2014-22-01
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 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 2014-15-01
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 2014-13-01
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 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

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

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

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

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 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 2014-02-01
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

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 2014-03-01
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

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 2014-01-01
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 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 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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2012-25-01
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 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

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 2012-24-03
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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 2012-10-01
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 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 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

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 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

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 2012-07-01
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

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 2012-05-01
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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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 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 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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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 2010-73-01
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 2010-71-01
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

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

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

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 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 2010-58-01
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 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

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 2010-60-01
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

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 2010-57-03
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 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 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

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 2010-53-03
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
16.07.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-48-03

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 2010-52-03
On Compliance of Sub-para 44.4 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
08.03.2011.

11.03.2011.

On Compliance of Sub-para 44.4 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-51-01
On Compliance of Article 10 (5) (6) of Law On the Rights of Patients, insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the State Audit Office to Request Necessary Information Regarding a Patient for the Performance of the Functions Specified by the Law with Article 1, Article 87, and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valsts kontroles padome
14.03.2011.

16.03.2011.

On Compliance of Article 10 (5) (6) of Law On the Rights of Patients, insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the State Audit Office to Request Necessary Information Regarding a Patient for the Performance of the Functions Specified by the Law with Article 1, Article 87, and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients does comply with Article 1, Article 87 and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-48-03
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 3 November 2009 by the Council of Rucava County No. 27 “On Spatial Plans of Rucava County” in the Part of Establishing Wind Energy Zone in the Territory of Dunika Parish and the Binding Regulation of 17 December 2009 No. 41 “Detail Planning for the Immoveable Property “Šuķi” (Cadastre Reg. 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
Adjudicated
Inita Vecbaštika, Vilma Dobele, Kristīne Preisa, Vilma Varna, Ilmars Varna, Armands Varna, Anna Sedola, Sandra Beņuše, Miķeli Sīklis, Mareks Mihailovs, Spodra Mudīte Kundziņa, Indra Vadeiķīte, Jānis Kundziņš, Ilgvars Sīklis, Marta Mame, Elmārs Kārlis Mamis, Gatis Mamis, Jānis Kūma, Ausma Līna Balode un Irma Alvīne Kapilinska
24.02.2011.

01.03.2011.

On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 3 November 2009 by the Council of Rucava County No. 27 “On Spatial Plans of Rucava County” in the Part of Establishing Wind Energy Zone in the Territory of Dunika Parish and the Binding Regulation of 17 December 2009 No. 41 “Detail Planning for the Immoveable Property “Šuķi” (Cadastre Reg. 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

Constitutional Court held to recognise the Binding Regulation of 3 November 2009 by the Council of Rucava County No. 27 “On Spatial Plans of Rucava County” in the Part of Establishing Wind Energy Zone in the Territory of Dunika Parish and the Binding Regulation of 17 December 2009 No. 41 “Detail Planning for the Immoveable Property “Šuķi” (Cadastre Reg. No. 6452 012 0156, Cad. No. 6452 011 0012), “Skrandas” (Cad. No. 6452 012 0007) as being compatible with Article 105 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-49-03
On Compliance of Para 30 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 25 August 2008 No. 692 "Regulations on Consumer Credit "with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā rajona tiesa
08.04.2011.

12.04.2011.

On Compliance of Para 30 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 25 August 2008 No. 692 "Regulations on Consumer Credit "with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-50-03
On Compliance of Annex I to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty", Insofar it Does not Envisage Possession of Religious Objects, with Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Nauris Rakuzovs
18.03.2011.

22.03.2011.

On Compliance of Annex I to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty", Insofar it Does not Envisage Possession of Religious Objects, with Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the First Appendix of 30 May 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 423 “Regulations of Internal Procedure in Imprisonment Establishments” insofar as it regulates keeping of religious objects does not comply with Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from 1 October 2011.

Case No 2010-46-01
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
Indra Zakovska
22.06.2010.
-
-

-

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: 2010-43-01

Case No 2010-47-01
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law of 14 June 2007 "Amendments to Law On the Completion of Land Reform in Rural Areas" in the Part, by Which Para 1 of Section 10(1) of Law on the Completion of Land Reform in Rural Areas is Expressed in a Different Wording, with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
31.01.2011.

03.02.2011.

On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law of 14 June 2007 "Amendments to Law On the Completion of Land Reform in Rural Areas" in the Part, by Which Para 1 of Section 10(1) of Law on the Completion of Land Reform in Rural Areas is Expressed in a Different Wording, with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-45-01
On Compliance of Section 14(7) and Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases", of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (in the Wording of the Law That Was Effective from 25 November 2004 to 16 June 2009) and Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law "On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases"" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
9.Saeimas deputāti Vladimirs Buzajevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Jakovs Pliners, Valērijs Agešins, Juris Sokolovskis, Aleksejs Holostovs, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Buhvalovs, Ivans Ribakovs, Igors Pimenovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Boriss Cilevičs, Ivans Klementjevs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Oļegs Deņisovs, Martijans Bekasovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Nikolajs Kabanovs un Sergejs Fjodorovs
22.06.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-17-01

Case No 2010-44-01
On Compliance of the Words of Para 1 Section 7 (5) "the Height of Which Does not Exceed 1.2 Meters" of Law On the Procedures for Holding the Detained Persons" and Para 1 of Transitional Provisions Thereof with Article 1 and Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs
20.12.2010.

22.12.2010.

On Compliance of the Words of Para 1 Section 7 (5) "the Height of Which Does not Exceed 1.2 Meters" of Law On the Procedures for Holding the Detained Persons" and Para 1 of Transitional Provisions Thereof with Article 1 and Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held::
1. The words of Section 7 (5) Indent 1 “by means of a wall, the height of which does not exceed 1.2 meters” of the Law “On Procedures for Keeping of Detained Persons” fail to comply with Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Procedures for Keeping of Detained Persons” fail to comply with Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall become null and void as from 1 January 2012.

Case No 2010-42-01
On Compliance of Section 6 of the Law of 1 December 2009 "Amendments to Law On Personal Income Tax" (in the Part on Deleting Para 3 of Section 9(1) of Law on Personal Income Tax) and of Para 13 of Section 8(3) and Section 16.1(9) with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Mārtiņš Draudiņš
16.06.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-25-01

Case No 2010-43-01
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
Nataļja Ščerbakova un Aleksandrs Ščerbakovs
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 No 2010-41-01
On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vladimirs Čerkasovs
19.05.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-01-01

Case No 2010-40-03
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Para 40 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 6 March 2007 No. 173 "Procedures for the Acquisition of Driver Qualification, Procedures for the Acquisition and Renewal of the Right to Drive a Vehicle and Procedures for the Issuance, Change and Renewal of Driving License" with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
11.01.2011.

13.01.2011.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Para 40 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 6 March 2007 No. 173 "Procedures for the Acquisition of Driver Qualification, Procedures for the Acquisition and Renewal of the Right to Drive a Vehicle and Procedures for the Issuance, Change and Renewal of Driving License" with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the First Sentence of Section 40 of March 2007 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 173 “Procedures for the Acquisition of Driver Qualification, Procedures for the Acquisition and Renewal of the Right to Drive a Vehicle and Procedures for the Issuance, Change and Renewal of Driving License” does comply with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-39-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 20 of Law On the Judicial Power (in the Wording of 16 June 2009) and the Third Sentence thereof (in the Wording of 1 December 2009,) Insofar as They Establish Remuneration of Land Registry Office Judges, with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Žanna Zujeva, Ilga Neimane, Ligita Vecauziņa, Liāna Liepiņa, Gita Grišāne, Sandra Breča, Agnese Skulme, Ilze Ieviņa, Ieva Zabarovska, Ilze Ieviņa, Kristīne Ozoliņa, Inese Kazjonova, Irēna Lavrinoviča, Una Melameda, Baiba Strauta, Smaida Grava, Inese Punte, Dainida Sarma, Ināra Jaunzeme, Ināra Zariņa, Dainis Šaicāns, Mairita Zadiņa, Māra Balode, Everita Ancāne, Antra Tiltiņa un Ināra Zabarovska
14.12.2010.

16.12.2010.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 20 of Law On the Judicial Power (in the Wording of 16 June 2009) and the Third Sentence thereof (in the Wording of 1 December 2009,) Insofar as They Establish Remuneration of Land Registry Office Judges, with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the second sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power” and the words “salary of judges shall be calculated at the amount of 73 percent of the labour wage established in accordance with Para 17 of the Transitional Provisions” insofar as they establish remuneration of Land Registry Office judges, do comply with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme provided that from 1 January 2011 salaries would be calculated and disbursed in accordance with Section120.1 of the Law “On Judicial Power” as ruled in the Judgment of 18 January 2010 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2009-11-01.

Case No 2010-37-01
On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Valdis Graudiņš
28.04.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-29-01

Case No 2010-38-01
On Compliance of Section 358 and Section 364 of Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
J. F.
27.12.2010.

30.12.2010.

On Compliance of Section 358 and Section 364 of Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 358 and Section 364 of the Civil Law do not comply with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from 1 January 2012.

Case No 2010-36-01
Joined
Sandra Briķe
28.04.2010.
-
-

-

Combined case: 2009-111-01

Case No 2010-35-01
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
Jānis Ozoliņš
21.04.2010.
-
-

-

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 2010-34-01
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Kristīne Bugina
21.04.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-16-01

Case No 2010-29-01
On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pension" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Pieteikuma iesniedzēja: Ramona Pabērza, Jānis Ozoliņš un Valdis Graudiņš
18.02.2011.

22.02.2011.

On Compliance of Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pension" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Para 30 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2010-33-01
On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Politisko partiju apvienība "Zaļo un zemnieku savienība"
21.04.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-01-01

Case No 2010-30-01
On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law with Article 1 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Renāte Dorondo
21.04.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-18-01

Case No 2010-31-01
On Compliance of the Words "With Confiscation of Property" in Section 320(2) of Criminal Law (in the Wording of 25 April 2002 of the Law) with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Dainis Markus
06.01.2011.

11.01.2011.

On Compliance of the Words "With Confiscation of Property" in Section 320(2) of Criminal Law (in the Wording of 25 April 2002 of the Law) with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2010-32-01
On Compliance of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Liene Gotlande-Vaitkuse un Renārs Vaitkuss
21.04.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-16-01

Case No 2010-27-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vitalijs Pčelovs
16.04.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-17-01

Case No 2010-28-01
On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 1 of Transitional provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vladimirs Podoļako
16.04.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 1 of Transitional provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2010-20-0106

Case No 2010-26-01
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
Indulis Brodiņš
14.04.2010.
-
-

-

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: 2010-08-01

Case No 2010-24-01
Joined
Sandra Strence, Silvija Sēbriņa, Aivars Zāģeris, Jānis Bazēvičs, Skaidrīte Buivide, Līga Blūmiņa, Daiga Vilsone, Gunta Ozoliņa, Juris Freimanis, Ineta Ozola, Ligita Gavare, Marianna Terjuhana, Dzintra Zvaigznekalna-Žagare, Inese Grauda, Inta Jēkabsone, Milda Zelmene, Sarmīte Vamža, Lidija Pliča, Valērijs Maksimovs, Lelde Grauda, Iveta Bērziņa, Zane Pētersone, Mārtiņš Sviķis, Mairita Šķendere, Dace Jansone, Sandra Krūmiņa, Iveta Meldere, Inta Zaļā, Daiga Kalniņa, Ingūna Amoliņa, Iveta Brimerberga, Tamāra Broda, Brigita Būmeistere, Sandra Amola, Diāna Dumbre, Boriss Geimans, Smaida Gļazere, Rihards Hlevickis, Signe Kalniņa, Irīna Jansone, Ligita Kuzmane, Zinaida Lagzdiņa, Iveta Vīgante, Aina Nicmane, Aivars Uminskis, Guntars Stūris, Ināra Šteinerte, Žaneta Vēvere, Inese Laura Zemīte, Ārija Ždanova, Juris Stukāns, Baiba Jakobsone, Dagnija Bērziņa, Marika Bebriša, Sanita Rūtenberga, Ieva Reikmane, Inese Strelča, Skaidrīte Hrebtova, Vivita Voronova, Dace Ķeire, Signe Vilve, Jolanta Zaškina, Ingrīda Bite, Anita Dzērve, Inese Rubina, Lauma Volberga, Diāna Dzērviniece, Baiba Ozoliņa, Ināra Janēviča, Irēna Krastiņa, Alfs Baumanis, Signe Dektere, Normunds Riņķis, Gatis Štauers, Gvido Ungurs, Uldis Danga, Ilze Apse, Sanita Strakše, Viesturs Gaidukēvičs, Viktors Prudņikovs, Aija Āva, Dace Kantsone, Anna Mihailova, Kristīne Vanaga, Iveta Krēvica, Anita Moļņika, Aelita Ignatjeva, Andrejs Mihaļčenko, Irēna Millere, Dina Bondare, Ilze Celmiņa, Inga Krigena-Jurkāne, Ina Baiko, Ilze Ošiņa, Agita Dmitrenoka, Doloresa Bambere, Inese Strode, Antra Zute, Visvaldis Sprudzāns, Vilis Donāns, Inese Skudra, Inese Belicka, Svetlana Maršāne, Elmārs Lenšs, Dzintra Zemitāne, Aiga Freimane, Santa Sondare, Ineta Škutāne, Ilze Vanaga, Agnese Veita, Ziedonis Strazds, Elita Stelte-Auziņa, Iluta Kovaļova, Brigita Baltraite, Adrija Kasakovska, Rita Bruce, Inese Mudele, Aelita Vancāne, Karīna Kazārova, Inta Kalniņa, Sigita Ozola, Selga Lapejeva, Silva Reinholde, Vineta Ramba, Rita Vīva, Astra Klaiše, Zaiga Zaiceva, Biruta Ķeire, Laima Kraule, Linda Vēbere, Ingrīda Junghāne, Ināra Rozīte, Sandra Mertena, Vineta Vaiteika, Kārlis Stārasts, Ērika Gulbe, Renāte Krasovska, Elita Grigoroviča, Rinalda Liepiņa, Dzintra Apine, Elga Sudāre, Kornēlija Poča, Ilze Lazdiņa, Gunta Rezgoriņa, Dainis Pēteris Kļaviņš, Inese Siliņeviča, Lauma Šteinerte, Santa Bernharde, Žanete Žimante, Inta Rubene, Maruta Bite, Ināra Strautiņa, Madara Ābele, Irīna Makovska Olita Blūmfelde, Sandra Meliņa, Dzintra Balta, Gunta Freimane, Imants Dzenis, Andis Celms, Rinalds Silakalns, Iveta Stuberovska, Vija Siliniece, Ilze Freimane, Dace Ābele, Ojārs Priedītis, Mārtiņš Birkmanis, Aija Pāvele, Sanita Ozola, Dina Suipe, Ilona Petrovska, Roze Paegle, Aija Reitupe, Irina Kaļiņina, Inga Putra, Aldis Vīksne, Staņislavs Linkevičs, Sanita Zakrevska, Māris Šļakota, Dzintars Melbārdis, Lala Apšeniece, Agija Kudrēviča un Stella Blūma
09.04.2010.
-
-

-

Combined case: 2009-111-01

Case No 2010-25-01
On Compliance of Section 6 of Law Amendments to the Law on Personal Income Tax of 1 December 2009 (Provision Envisaging Deleting Para 3 of Section 9 (1) of Law On Personal Income Tax) and Para 13 of Section 8 (3) and Para 19 of Section 16.1 of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Mārtiņš Trautmanis un Mārtiņš Draudiņš
06.12.2010.

08.12.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-23-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the first and the third part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Kate Dobelniece
08.04.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-16-01

Case No 2010-22-01
On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia, Insofar it Applies to Land under Residential Apartment Houses and Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Soņa Traube (Sonia Traub)
27.01.2011.

01.02.2011.

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

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

Case No 2010-20-0106
On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions (in the Part Pertaining to Making Equivalent Periods of Work and the Equivalent Periods Thereof of Non-Citizens to Lengths of Period of Insurance) with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jurijs Savickis, Asija Sivicka, Marzija Vagapova, Genādijs Ņesterovs un Vladimirs Podoļako
17.02.2011.

22.02.2011.

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

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

Case No 2010-21-01
On Compliance Section 4 (2) of Law On State Funded Pensions and Para 2, Sub-para 4 and Sub-para 5 of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions thereof with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Eduards Ikvilds
01.12.2010.

03.12.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-19-01
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Kristīne Kurzemniece-Bušēvica un Tamāra Kasimova
17.03.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2010-16-01

Case No 2010-18-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law with Article 1, Article 109 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Marika Skulte un Renāte Dorondo
10.01.2011.

13.01.2011.

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

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

Case No 2010-16-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the First and the Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Andris Tropiks, Kristīne Kurzemniece-Bušēvica, Tamāra Kasimova, Kate Dobelniece, Liene Gotlande-Vaitkuse, Renārs Vaitkuss un Kristīne Bugina
26.05.2010.

01.06.2010.

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

Case No 2010-17-01
On Compliance of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Compliance of Section 14(7) of This Law, as Well as of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (in the Wording of the Law That Was Effective from 25 November 2004 to 16 June 2009) and Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aina Lakstiņa-Lakstīgala, Jautrīte Maija Kronīte, Anna Salmane, Emīls Streipa, Vitalijs Pčelovs, Vizma Draveniece, kā arī 9.Saeimas deputāti Vladimirs Buzajevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Jakovs Pliners, Valērijs Agešins, Juris Sokolovskis, Aleksejs Holostovs, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Valērijs Buhvalovs, Ivans Ribakovs, Igors Pimenovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Boriss Cilevičs, Ivans Klementjevs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Oļegs Deņisovs, Martijans Bekasovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Nikolajs Kabanovs un Sergejs Fjodorovs
29.10.2010.

02.11.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-15-01
On Compliance of Section 141(1) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar as It Establishes the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision Satisfying an Application on Securing of a Claim, with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
"Yelverton Investment B.V."
04.10.2010.

06.10.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-14-01
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
Svetlana Tropika
24.02.2010.
-
-

-

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: 2010-08-01

Case No 2010-13-01
On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ilgonis Heinackis
15.04.2010.

20.04.2010.

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

Case No 2010-12-03
On Compliance of Para 30 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Mamas D" un SIA "Bio-Venta"
27.10.2010.

29.10.2010.

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

Case No 2010-11-01
On Compliance of Section 18(4) of Administrative Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Administratīvā apgabaltiesa
11.06.2010.

16.06.2010.

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

Case No 2010-10-01
On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ārija Meikališa
15.04.2010.

20.04.2010.

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

Case No 2010-09-01
On Compliance of the Words "if These Transactions Have Not Been Declared in Accordance with the Procedure Established by the First Part of this Section, - in the Amount of 15 Per Cent of the Sum Total of These Transactions, Unless this Section provides Otherwise" of Section 30(2) of Law on Taxes and Fees (in the Wording of 4 December 1997) with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
13.10.2010.

15.10.2010.

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

Case No 2010-08-01
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
Genādijs Gončarovs, Ināra Sīle, Svetlana Tropika un Indulis Brodiņš
24.11.2010.

25.11.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-07-01
"On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia "
Joined
Jānis Blažēvičs
18.01.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-110-01

Case No 2010-06-01
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law on Budget and Financial Management, Section 44 (2) of Law on the State Audit Office and Section 19 (2) of Ombudsman Law with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valsts kontroles padome
25.11.2010.

30.11.2010.

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

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

Case No 2010-05-01
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Edijs Lieģis
18.01.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-93-01

Case No 2010-02-01
On Compliance of Section 16 (10) of Law on Taxes and Fees with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Industriālais termināls"
19.06.2010.

28.06.2010.

On Compliance of Section 16 (10) of Law on Taxes and Fees with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 16 (10) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” insofar as it applies to tax overpayments accumulated before coming into force of this law, i.e. 1 July 2003, does not comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Section 16 (10) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” insofar as it applies to tax overpayments of the Applicant, Limited Liability Company “Industriālais termināls” accumulated before coming into force of this law, does not comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and is declared as null and void as from the date of adoption of it.

Case No 2010-03-01
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Indars Lieģis
15.01.2010.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-93-01

Case No 2010-04-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ilze Freimane, Lolita Andersone, Dace Ābele, Ojārs Priedītis, Mārtiņš Birkmanis, Dzintra Amerika, Kristīne Kalvāne-Radziņa, Aija Pāvele, Sanita Ozola, Dina Suipe, Ilona Petrovska, Irina Kaļiņina, Līga Hāzenfuse, Dzintars Melbārdis, Roze Paegle, Aija Reitupe, Rudīte Migla, Inga Putra, Lala Apšeniece, Zita Kupce, Līvija Slica, Sanita Kanenberga, Una Mihailova, Ļubova Kušnire, Kaspars Berķis, Karina Krastiņa, Sandra Gintere, Sanita Zakrevska, Margarita Osmane, Valda Zommere, Linda Vīnkalna, Valdis Vazdiķis, Solvita Pujāte, Māris Šļakota, Staņislavs Linkevičs, Arvīds Ozerskis, Iveta Kromāne, Kaspars Rinčs, Juris Kokins, Dace Blūma, Anita Bērziņa, Līga Karlsone, Helmuts Brasovs, Agita Papulė, Baiba Jakobsone, Dagnija Bērziņa, Marika Bebriša, Sanita Rūtenberga, Ieva Reikmane, Inese Strelča, Skaidrīte Hrebtova, Vivita Voronova, Dace Ķeire, Signe Vilne, Jolanta Zaškina, Ingrīda Bite, Anita Dzērve, Inese Rubina, Lauma Volberga, Diāna Dzērviniece, Baiba Ozoliņa, Ināra Janēviča, Irēna Krastiņa, Alfs Baumanis, Signe Dektere, Sandra Briķe, Marita Šalta, Sarmīte Lucava, Baiba Jēkabsone, Iveta Risberga, Guna Krieviņa, Vita Vjatere, Gunta Viļumsone, Maija Miltiņa, Jānis Stūrmanis un Ilze Amona
15.01.2010.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-111-01

Case No 2010-01-01
On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Bertolds Martins Fliks (Bertolt Martin Flick), Vladimirs Čerkasovs un politisko partiju apvienība "Zaļo un zemnieku savienība"
07.10.2010.

12.10.2010.

On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 286.14 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code does comply with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2009-117-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Dzintra Balta, Gunta Freimane, Imants Dzenis, Andis Celms, Rinalds Silakalns, Iveta Stuberovska, Vija Siliniece, Iveta Krēvica, Anita Moļņika, Aelita Ignatjeva, Andrejs Mihaļčenko, Irēna Millere, Dina Bondare, Ilze Celmiņa, Inga Krigena-Jurkāne, Ina Baiko, Ilze Ošiņa, Svens Lorencs, Agita Dmitrenoka, Doloresa Bambere, Ilze Freimane, Agnese Jurevica, Inese Strode un Antra Zute
29.12.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-111-01

Case No 2009-116-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Mārtiņš Ozers, Juris Jātnieks, Ivo Jaunzems, Oksana Stankeviča un Mareks Zeņins
22.12.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-110-01

Case No 2009-115-01
On Compliance of Section 116(1) of Law On the Sentence Execution Code with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Genādijs Davidenko
08.06.2010.

11.06.2010.

On Compliance of Section 116(1) of Law On the Sentence Execution Code with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-113-0106
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law On Procedures for Coming into Force of the Commercial Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Latvia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments
Adjudicated
Holgers Hākons Kristensens (Holger Haakon Kristensen)
06.10.2010.

08.10.2010.

On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law On Procedures for Coming into Force of the Commercial Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Latvia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments

Constitutional Court held that the Section 19 (5) of the Law on Procedures for Coming into Force of the Commercial Law does comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Latvia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments.

Case No 2009-114-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Linda Eze, Laila Kudrjavceva, Jānis Valdmanis, Valdis Sudniks, Andrejs Stoļarovs, Agnis Braunfelds, Aleksandrs Ļebedevs un Raimonds Štromanis
18.12.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-110-01

Case No 2009-112-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Brigita Baltraite, Adrija Kasakovska, Rita Bruce, Inese Mudele, Aelita Vancāne un Karīna Kazārova
15.12.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Para 7 and the Second Sentence of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 16 June 2009) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-111-01

Case No 2009-111-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Paragraph 7 and the second sentence of Paragraph 20 (in the wording of 16 June 2009) and the third sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Judicial Power" with Articles 1, 83 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Dace Ābele, Madara Ābele, Inga Akmeņlauka, Dzintra Amerika, Sandra Amola, Ingūna Amoliņa, Ilze Amona, Lolita Andersone, Dzintra Apine, Ilze Apse, Lala Apšeniece, Aija Āva, Ina Baiko, Daina Baltā, Dzintra Balta, Brigita Baltraite, Doloresa Bambere, Alfs Baumanis, Jānis Bazēvičs, Marika Bebriša, Inese Belicka, Svetlana Beļajeva, Kaspars Berķis, Santa Bernharde, Anita Bērziņa, Dagnija Bērziņa, Iveta Bērziņa, Mārtiņš Birkmanis, Intars Bisters, Ingrīda Bite, Maruta Bite, Dace Blūma, Stella Blūma, Olita Blūmfelde, Līga Blūmiņa, Dina Bondare, Tatjana Bormane, Helmuts Brasovs, Sandra Briķe, Iveta Brimerberga, Tamāra Broda, Arvīds Ozerskis, Ineta Ozola, Sanita Ozola, Sigita Ozola, Baiba Ozoliņa, Gunta Ozoliņa, Roze Paegle, Agita Papule, Aija Pāvele, Zane Pētersone, Ilona Petrovska, Lidija Pliča, Kornēlija Poča, Ojārs Priedītis, Viktors Prudņikovs, Inguna Preisa, Solvita Pujāte, Inga Putra, Vineta Ramba, Ieva Reikmane, Silva Reinholde, Aija Reitupe, Gunta Rezgoriņa, Kaspars Rinčs, Normunds Riņķis, Iveta Risberga, Ināra Rozīte, Inta Rubene, Inese Rubina, Sanita Rūtenberga, Silvija Sēbriņa, Rinalds Silakalns, Velta Silamiķele, Vija Siliniece, Inese Siliņeviča, Juris Siliņš, Dace Skrauple, Inese Skudra, Līvija Slica, Santa Sondare, Visvaldis Sprudzāns, Kārlis Stārasts, Elita Stelte-Auziņa, Sanita Strakše, Ināra Strautiņa, Ziedonis Strazds, Inese Strelča, Sandra Strence, Inese Strode, Iveta Stuberovska, Juris Stukāns, Guntars Stūris, Jānis Stūrmanis, Elga Sudāre, Dina Suipe, Mārtiņš Sviķis, Marita Šalta, Ineta Škutāne, Mairita Šķendere, Māris Šļakota, Gatis Štauers, Ināra Šteinerte, Lauma Šteinerte, Marianna Terjuhana, Daina Treija, Aivars Uminskis, Gvido Ungurs, Vineta Vaiteika, Sarmīte Vamža, Ilze Vanaga, Kristīne Vanaga, Aelita Vancāne, Valdis Vazdiķis, Linda Vēbere, Agnese Veita, Linda Vēbere, Žaneta Vēvere, Iveta Vīgante, Aldis Vīksne, Signe Vilne, Daiga Vilsone, Gunta Viļumsone, Linda Vīnkalna, Rita Vīva, Vita Vjatere, Lauma Volberga, Vivita Voronova, Inta Zaļā, Aivars Zāģeris, Zaiga Zaiceva, Sanita Zakrevska, Jolanta Zaškina, Milda Zelmene, Dzintra Zemitāne, Inese Laura Zemīte, Valda Zommere, Antra Zute, Dzintra Zvaigzneskalna-Žagare, Ārija Ždanova un Žanete Žimante, Rita Bruce, Skaidrīte Buivide, Brigita Būmeistere, Ilze Celmiņa, Andis Celms, Dzintra Danberga, Signe Dektere, Uldis Danga, Agita Dmitrenoka, Vilis Donāns, Diāna Dumbre, Imants Dzenis, Anita Dzērve, Diāna Dzērviniece, Aiga Freimane, Gunta Freimane, Ilze Freimane, Ilze Freimane, Juris Freimanis, Viesturs Gaidukēvičs, Ligita Gavare, Boriss Geimans, Sandra Gintere, Solvita Glaudāne, Smaida Gļazere, Inese Grauda, Lelde Grauda, Elita Grigoroviča, Ērika Gulbe, Līga Hāzenfuse, Rihards Hlevickis, Biruta Horuna, Skaidrīte Hrebtova, Aelita Ignatjeva, Baiba Jakobsone, Ināra Janēviča, Dace Jansone, Irīna Jansone, Baiba Jēkabsone, Inta Jēkabsone, Ingrīda Junghāne, Agnese Jurevica, Daiga Kalniņa, Inta Kalniņa, Signe Kalniņa, Kristīne Kalvāne-Radziņa, Irina Kaļiņina, Sanita Kanenberga, Līga Karlsone, Dace Kantsone, Adrija Kasakovska, Karīna Kazārova, Astra Klaiše, Dainis Peteris Kļaviņš, Regīna Knabe, Juris Kokins, Iluta Kovaļova, Renāte Krasovska, Irēna Krastiņa, Karina Krastiņa, Laima Kraule, Iveta Krēvica, Guna Krieviņa, Inga Krigena-Jurkāne, Iveta Kromāne, Sandra Krūmiņa, Agija Kudrēviča, Zita Kupce, Ļubova Kušnire, Ligita Kuzmane, Guntars Kveska, Biruta Ķeire, Dace Ķeire, Zinaida Lagzdiņa, Selga Lapejeva, Gundega Lapiņa, Ilze Lazdiņa, Elmārs Lenšs, Rinalda Liepiņa, Staņislavs Linkevičs, Irēna Logina, Svens Lorencs, Sarmīte Lucava, Irīna Makovska, Valērijs Maksimovs, Svetlana Maršāne, Dzintars Melbārdis, Iveta Meldere, Sandra Meliņa, Sandra Mertena, Rudīte Migla, Anna Mihailova, Una Mihailova, Andrejs Mihaļčenko, Irēna Millere, Maija Miltiņa, Anita Misiuna, Anita Moļņika, Inese Mudele, Aina Nicmane, Margarita Osmane, Ilze Ošiņa
22.06.2010.

28.06.2010.

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Paragraph 7 and the second sentence of Paragraph 20 (in the wording of 16 June 2009) and the third sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Judicial Power" with Articles 1, 83 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. To declare the second sentence and the words of the third sentence “from 1 January 1010 till 31 December 2011 judges’ remuneration shall be set in amount of 73% percent of the remuneration foe work, which has been set in accordance with Paragraph 7 of these Transitional Provisions” of Article 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power” compatible with Article 1, 83 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, if starting with 1 January 2011 the remuneration is set and paid in accordance with Article 1191 of the Law “On Judicial Power”, i.e., in compliance with Judgement of 18 January 2010 by the Constitutional Court in Case No. 2009-11-01.
2. To declare the words of the third sentence of Paragraph 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power” “without exceeding the remuneration of the Prime Minister, which is defined in accordance with the Law on the Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Municipal Institutions” incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 1 January 2011.
3. To close proceedings in the part regarding the compatibility of the second sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power” with Article 1, 83 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2009-110-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sandis Lazdiņš, Linda Eze, Laila Kudrjavceva, Jānis Valdmanis, Valdis Sudniks, Andrejs Stoļarovs, Agnis Braunfelds, Aleksandrs Ļebedevs, Raimonds Štromanis, Mārtiņš Ozers, Juris Jātnieks, Ivo Jaunzems, Oksana Stankeviča, Mareks Zeņins un Jānis Blažēvičs
23.03.2010.

25.03.2010.

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

Case No 2009-109-01
On Compliance of Section 2(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Section 3(1) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Nikolajs Terentjevs
19.01.2010.

21.01.2010.

On Compliance of Section 2(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Section 3(1) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-108-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ingus Sloka, Olga Būmane, Harijs Misiņš, Aleksejs Demjaņenko, Inita Auzāne, Arnis Maculēvičs, Andris Bleive un Māris Urbāns
26.11.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-107-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Service Pension of State and Local Government Professional Orchestra, Choir, Concert Organisation, Theatre and Circus Artists with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aivars Krancmanis
27.05.2010.

01.06.2010.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Service Pension of State and Local Government Professional Orchestra, Choir, Concert Organisation, Theatre and Circus Artists with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-106-01
On Compliance of Section 141( 1) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does Not Provide for the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision on Securing of a Claim with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vitālijs Grinčišins
04.11.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 141( 1) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does Not Provide for the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision on Securing of a Claim with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-85-01

Case No 2009-105-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ģirts Kaņeps
03.11.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-103-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Raivis Teniss, Mārtiņš Solovjovs, Nauris Griščenko, Aivars Vaičikauskis, Ļevs Lapkis, Valērijs Šabanovs, Ģirts Vinters, Guntars Agate Paeglis, Mārtiņš Sviķis, Agris Neilands, Sergejs Andračņikovs un Māris Apfelbergs
30.10.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-104-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Larisa Paramonova
19.01.2010.

21.01.2010.

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-102-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the First and the Third Part of Section (405) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Artūrs Ikvilds
13.10.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-93-01

Case No 2009-101-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Armands Novickis, Guntars Polis, Anatolijs Streļins, Egils Ziemelis, Rolands Loganovskis, Kaspars Lāmanis-Jēgersons, Edgars Grotāns, Jānis Graudulis, Ingars Zariņš, Daņiils Azarijevs, Diāna Kairiša, Andris Amatnieks, Viktors Rautmanis un Kaspars Krūmiņš
07.10.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-100-03
Adjudicated
Valdis Kronis
20.04.2010.

23.04.2010.

Case No 2009-99-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jānis Gutāns
07.10.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-95-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Madars Deaks
29.09.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-96-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ivars Šulcs
29.09.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-97-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Rolands Vāceris un Aivars Bērziņš
29.09.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-98-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sandris Mukāns un Linda Plūme-Vozņakovska
29.09.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-93-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400 (1) and the First and Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Dzintars Lejnieks, Māris Rudzītis, Santa Pole, Indars Lieģis un Edijs Lieģis
17.05.2010.

20.05.2010.

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

Constitutional Court held that the Section 400 (1) Indent 1 and Section 405 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Law comply with Article 92 of the Satversme if a debtor is sent a warning on undisputed compulsory execution of obligations prior to launching of it.

Case No 2009-94-01
The Compliance of the Words in the First Sentence of Paragraph 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Citizenship Law "if the Registration Takes Place by 1 July, 1995" and of the Second Sentence with Article 1 and 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as with the Preamble of 4 May 1990 Declaration of the Supreme Council of Latvian S.S.R. "On the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia"
Adjudicated
Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments
13.05.2010.

18.05.2010.

The Compliance of the Words in the First Sentence of Paragraph 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Citizenship Law "if the Registration Takes Place by 1 July, 1995" and of the Second Sentence with Article 1 and 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as with the Preamble of 4 May 1990 Declaration of the Supreme Council of Latvian S.S.R. "On the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia"

Case No 2009-92-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ilze Balode
16.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-91-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Viktors Ziničs
16.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-90-03
On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 December 2006 No. 1022 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Mārtiņš Ēcis
16.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 December 2006 No. 1022 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-69-03

Case No 2009-88-01
On Compliance of Para 14, Para 16 and Para 17 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Long Service Pensions of Military Persons" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Vēsma Vilka
15.04.2010.

20.04.2010.

On Compliance of Para 14, Para 16 and Para 17 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Long Service Pensions of Military Persons" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Para 14 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long Service Pensions for Military Persons”, insofar as it applies to persons who have received the age of granting old age pension established in the Law “On State Pensions” does not comply with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be regarded as null and void as from the moment of adoption thereof.
2. According deductions of long service pensions of military persons who have reached the age of granting of old age pension established in the Law “On State Pensions” made under Para 14 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long Service Pensions for Military Persons” shall be terminated no later than by 1 June 2010.
3. The Saeima shall be committed to establishing, no later than by 1 June 2010, procedure for disbursing deductions from long service pensions of military persons who have reached the age of granting of old age pension established in the Law “On State Pensions” made under Para 14 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long Service Pensions for Military Persons”.
4. Proceedings regarding compliance of Para 16 and Para 17 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long Service Pensions for Military Persons” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme shall be terminated.

Case No 2009-89-0103
On Compliance of the Sub-programme 21.06.00 of Law On State Budget for 2009 with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Compliance of Para 26 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
SIA "Bio-Venta"
15.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Sub-programme 21.06.00 of Law On State Budget for 2009 with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Compliance of Para 26 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-42-0103

Case No 2009-86-01
On Compliance of Para 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Long Service Pensions for Public Prosecutors with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Alla Ignatjeva
21.04.2010.

23.04.2010.

On Compliance of Para 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Long Service Pensions for Public Prosecutors with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held:
1. Para 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Long Service Pension of Public Prosecutors does not comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as from the date of adoption thereof.
2. Deductions from the long service pensions made in accordance with Para 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Long Service Pension of Public Prosecutors shall be ceased and reimbursed no later than before 1 June 2010.
3. No later than before 1 June 2010, the Saeima shall have the duty to establish a procedure, according to which the deductions made in accordance with Para 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Long Service Pension of Public Prosecutors will be reimbursed.

Case No 2009-87-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Edvīns Piliksers
14.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-85-01
On Compliance of Section 141(1) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision Satisfying an Application on Securing of a Claim, with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme
Adjudicated
AS "Topmar Holdings", Vitālijs Grinčišins
30.03.2010.

01.04.2010.

On Compliance of Section 141(1) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision Satisfying an Application on Securing of a Claim, with Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 141 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it does not grant the right to submit an ancillary complaint regarding a decision satisfying an application on securing a claim or a decision rejecting an application to cancel the security of the claim does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme.
2. In relation to the Applicants, the joint stock company “TOPMAR HOLDINGS” and Mr. Vitālijs Grinčišins, Section 141 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it does not grant the right to submit an ancillary complaint regarding a decision satisfying an application for securing a claim shall be null and void from the moment of adoption thereof.
3. Up to the moment when the Saeima introduces amendments to the normative regulation as ruled herein, the wording of Section 141 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of 14 December 2006 shall be in force insofar as it grants the defendant the right to submit an ancillary complaint regarding the decision rejecting to cancel the security of a claim.

Case No 2009-84-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Velga Valija Žagare
01.09.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-81-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Aivars Grūbe
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-82-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Daila Zubkina
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-83-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ilga Pohevica un Svetlana Šibajeva
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-76-01
On Compliance of Para 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks" with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Uldis Mugarevičs
31.03.2010.

06.04.2010.

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

Constitutional Court held:
1. Para 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks” does not comply with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from the date of adopting it.
2. Deductions from long-service pensions established in Para 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks” shall be terminated no later than by 1 June 2010.
3. No later than by 1 June 2010, the Saeima shall be committed to establishing procedure for disbursing the deductions from the long-service pensions made in accordance with Para 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks”.

Case No 2009-78-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Pāvels Levčenkovs
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-77-01
On Compliance of Section 83.2 and Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Public Procurement Law with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Latvijas Valsts prezidents Valdis Zatlers
19.04.2010.

21.04.2010.

On Compliance of Section 83.2 and Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Public Procurement Law with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 83.2 of the Public Procurement Law does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme and shall be null and void as from the date of coming into force of the Judgment.

Case No 2009-79-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vairis Lejiņš
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-80-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Arvis Kņazs
26.08.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-75-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Aleksandra Artjuhova
19.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-74-01
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 13 of Law On Management of Residential Housing with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Vitolds Peipiņš
18.02.2010.

23.02.2010.

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 13 of Law On Management of Residential Housing with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the First Part of Section 13 of the Law on Management of Residential Housing, insofar as it applies to persons having practical working experience in the field of residential housing management and have obtained another vocational education, does not comply with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from 1 July 2010.

Case No 2009-69-03
On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 December 2006 No. 1022 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valters Raumanis
09.03.2010.

11.03.2010.

On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 December 2006 No. 1022 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-67-01
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
9.Saeimas deputāti: Aigars Štokenbergs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Boriss Cilevičs, Ivans Ribakovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Valērijs Agešins, Mihails Zemļinskis, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Vitālijs Orlovs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Ivans Klementjevs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Igors Pimenovs, Artūrs Rubiks un Artis Pabriks
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

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

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-68-01
On Compliance of Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
9.Saeimas deputāti: Aigars Štokenbergs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ivans Klementjevs, Ivans Ribakovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Mihails Zemļinskis, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Igors Pimenovs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Artis Pabriks un Artūrs Rubiks
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-70-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Guntis Immers un Gunārs Pavlovskis
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-71-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Arvīds Gailāns
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-72-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ārija Miķelsone
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-73-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Videvuds Ārijs Lapsa un Viktors Mironovs
12.08.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-63-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Aleksandrs Litvins
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service Pension, Which Has Been Granted in Compliance with By-law “On the Rank and File and the Unit Commanding Personnel of the Institutions of the Ministry of the Interior Employee Pensions (Employer Pensions)”, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-64-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Neļļa Jurčenko
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-50-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Olga Bormane
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-65-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service pensions Granted in Accordance with By-law "On Service Pensions", with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Timurs Hairovs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to Service pensions Granted in Accordance with By-law "On Service Pensions", with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-48-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Mārtiņš Draudiņš, Alberts Krols un Daumants Znatnajs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-66-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Guntis Jānis Briķis
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-49-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ivars Mauriņš
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-51-01
On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Māris Urbanovičs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-52-01
On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Gunta Rubine
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-53-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Valdis Krisbergs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-54-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Maija Krūmiņa
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-55-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Arkadijs Bogdans, Māris Mertens, Jevgēnijs Drevickis, Boriss Vinogradovs, Tatjana Tretjakova, Oļegs Alimovs, Edīte Gaidele un Aleksandrs Demehovs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-56-01
On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Dainis Rozenfelds
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-44-01

Case No 2009-58-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Leonīds Sazonovs, Veronika Kulakova, Viktors Macuļevičs, Vladimirs Dudins, Tamāra Smirnova, Ārija Kalniņa, Anita Stārastniece, Juris Trunkovs, Margarieta Berķe, Lidija Peščerska, Silvija Janele, Taisa Sidorova, Aira Zvejniece, Alberts Mozga, Valdis Freijs, Vitauts Gaross, Heldurs Kesks, Zenta Ambulte, Valdis Priedītis, Mirdza Priedīte, Māris Zemturis un Helga Zemture, Edmunds Slūka, Jānis Daļeckis, Zinaīda Kasparāne, Valentīna Lomovacka, Gaisma Līvija Sondora, Emīlija Kramiņa, Marija Markovska, Ilmars Trams, Viktors Sutockins, Andris Rutenbergs, Ilgvars Ernestovskis, Vladislavs Odorskis, Olgerts Akmens, Vasilijs Sitaruks, Bogdans Grigjans, Mārtiņš Krišlauks, Jānis Tenders, Aleksandrs Valaha, Leons Odovskis, Zigmunds Mazistabs, Petro Muzika, Aina Ahmedova, Janīna Geršebeka, Boriss Moščinskis, Gaļina Moščinska, Vera Kudrjašova, Raimonds Pāvils, Helēna Biruta Štāle, Ļubova Kosovecs, Anatolijs Kosovecs, Ilgvars Uškuris-Barčis, Vija Storķe, Ļubova Smirnova, Gunta Sevčuka, Edvīns Linde, Māris Strazdiņš, Zenta Rutka, Galina Juzvjaka un Anna Jagdholda
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-57-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Andrejs Rokpelnis un Konstantins Zabolockis
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-59-01
On Compliance of Section 2(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Vasilijs Ņikiforovs
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 2(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-60-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ārija Kušnere
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-61-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Juris Šalms, Zaiga Goba, Ingrīda Šķērstiņa, Jazeps Šemjanko un Jānis Upinieks
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-62-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Jānis Delerts
28.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-46-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Para 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the 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
9.Saeimas deputāti: Boriss Cilevičs, Jānis Tutins, Ivans Klementjevs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Sergejs Mirskis, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Valērijs Agešins, Andrejs Klementjevs, Ivans Ribakovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Oļegs Deņisovs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Nils Ušakovs, Juris Sokolovskis, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs un Valērijs Buhvalovs
02.02.2010.

04.02.2010.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Para 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the 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

Constitutional Court held that the first sentence of Para 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on the Social Protection of the Participants of the Chernobyl Nuclear Clean-up and Persons Suffered as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident does not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be null and void as from 1 July 2010.

Case No 2009-47-01
On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Boriss Jarinovskis, Juris Ļabis, Neruta Atvare, Astrīda Krēsla un Uldis Ātrens
17.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 3(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012, Insofar It Applies to the State Old-age Pension, with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-43-01

Case No 2009-45-01
On compliance of Section 33 of Law On Local Government Election Campaigns" with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jānis Kuzins
22.02.2010.

25.02.2010.

On compliance of Section 33 of Law On Local Government Election Campaigns" with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 33 of the Law “On Pre-election Campaign before the Local Government Elections” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2009-42-0103
On Compliance of the Sub-programme 21.06.00 of Law On State Budget for 2009 with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Compliance of Para 26 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
SIA "Mamas D" un SIA "Bio-Venta".
17.01.2010.

19.02.2010.

On Compliance of the Sub-programme 21.06.00 of Law On State Budget for 2009 with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Compliance of Para 26 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2009-43-01
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of the Law "On State Pension and Allowance Disbursement from 2009 to 2012" insofar as it Applies to State Old-Age Pension with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Ilmārs Drēziņš, Boriss Jarinovskis, Juris Ļabis, Neruta Atvare, Astrīda Krēsla, Uldis Ātrens, Mārtiņš Draudiņš, Alberts Krols, Daumants Znatnajs, Ivars Mauriņš, Olga Bormane, Gunta Rubine, Valdis Krisbergs, Maija Krūmiņa, Arkadijs Bogdans, Māris Mertens, Jevgēnijs Drevickis, Boriss Vinogradovs, Tatjana Tretjakova, Olegs Alimovs, Edīte Gaidele, Aleksandrs Demehovs, Andrejs Rokpelnis, Konstantīns Zabolockis, Leonīds Sazonovs, Veronika Kulakova, Viktors Macuļevičs, Vladimirs Dudins, Tamāra Smirnova, Ārija Kalniņa, Anita Stārastniece, Juris Trunkovs, Margarieta Berķe, Lidija Peščerska, Silvija Janele, Taisa Sidorova, Aira Zvejniece, Alberts Mozga, Valdis Freijs, Vitauts Gaross, Heldurs Kesks, Zenta Ambulte, Valdis Priedītis, Mirdza Priedīte, Māris Zemturis un Helga Zemture, Edmunds Slūka, Jānis Daļeckis, Zinaīda Kasparāne, Valentīna Lomovacka, Gaisma Līvija Sondora, Emīlija Kramiņa, Marija Markovska, Ilmars Trams, Viktors Sutockins, Andris Rutenbergs, Ilgvars Ernestovskis, Vladislavs Odorskis, Olgerts Akmens, Vasilijs Sitaruks, Bogdans Grigjans, Mārtiņš Krišlauks, Jānis Tenders, Aleksandrs Valaha, Leons Odovskis, Zigmunds Mazistabs, Petro Muzika, Aina Ahmedova, Janīna Geršebeka, Boriss Moščinskis, Gaļina Moščinska, Vera Kudrjašova, Raimonds Pāvils, Helēna Biruta Štāle, Ļubova Kosovecs, Anatolijs Kosovecs, Ilgvars Uškuris-Barčis, Vija Storķe, Ļubova Smirnova, Gunta Sevčuka, Edvīns Linde, Māris Strazdiņš, Zenta Rutka, Galina Juzvjaka, Anna Jagdholda, Vasilijs Ņikiforovs, Ārija Kušnere, Juris Šalms, Zaiga Goba, Ingrīda Šķērstiņa, Jazeps Šemjanko, Jānis Upinieks, Jurijs Kļimovs, Jānis Delerts, Rimma Delerte, Aleksandrs Litvins, Neļļa Jurčenko, Timurs Hairovs, Guntis Jānis Briķis, Guntis Immers, Gunārs Pavlovskis, Arvīds Gailāns, Ārija Miķelsone, Videvuds Ārijs Lapsa, Viktors Mironovs, Aleksandra Artjuhova, Aivars Grūbe, Daila Zubkina, Ilga Pohevica Svetlana Šibajeva, Velga Valija Žagare, Edvīns Piliksers, Viktors Ziničs, Ilze Balode, Jānis Gutāns, Larisa Paramonova, kā arī 9.Saeimas deputāti Aigars Štokenbergs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ivans Klementjevs, Ivans Ribakovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Mihails Zemļinskis, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Igors Pimenovs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Artis Pabriks un Artūrs Rubiks
21.12.2009.

22.12.2009.

On Compliance of the First Part of Section 3 of the Law "On State Pension and Allowance Disbursement from 2009 to 2012" insofar as it Applies to State Old-Age Pension with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare Paragraph One of Article 2 and Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012 as unconformable with Articles 1 and 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment of their adoption.
2. To stipulate that the deductions from pensions established in accordance with Paragraph One of Article 2 and Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012 shall be discontinued not later than from 1 March 2010.
3. To order the Saeima to establish a reimbursement procedure for deductions made in accordance with Paragraph One of Article 2 and Paragraph One of Article 3 of the Law on State Pension and State Allowance Disbursement in the Period from 2009 to 2012 not later than by 1 March 2010.

Case No 2009-44-01
On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Raimonds Priede-Baņģieris, Māris Kociņš, Māris Urbanovičs, Dainis Rozenfelds, Pāvels Levčenkovs, Vairis Lejiņš, Arvis Kņazs, Madars Deaks, Ivars Šulcs, Sandris Mukāns, Linda Plūme-Vozņakovska, Rolands Vāceris, Aivars Bērziņš, Armands Novickis, Guntars Polis, Anatolijs Streļins, Egils Ziemelis, Rolands Loganovskis, Kaspars Lāmanis-Jēgersons, Edgars Grotāns, Jānis Graudulis, Ingars Zariņš, Daņiils Azarijevs, Diāna Kairiša, Andris Amatnieks, Viktors Rautmanis, Kaspars Krūmiņš, Raivis Teniss, Mārtiņš Solovjovs, Nauris Griščenko, Aivars Vaičikauskis, Ļevs Lapkis, Valērijs Šabanovs, Ģirts Vinters, Guntars Agate Paeglis, Mārtiņš Sviķis, Agris Neilands, Sergejs Andračņikovs, Māris Apfelbergs, Ģirts Kaņeps, Ingus Sloka, Olga Būmane, Harijs Misiņš, Aleksejs Demjaņenko, Inita Auzāne, Arnis Maculēvičs, Andris Bleive, Māris Urbāns, kā arī 9.Saeimas deputāti Aigars Štokenbergs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Jānis Urbanovičs, Boriss Cilevičs, Ivans Ribakovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Valērijs Agešins, Mihails Zemļinskis, Sergejs Mirskis, Jānis Tutins, Vitālijs Orlovs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Ivans Klementjevs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Aleksejs Holostovs, Igors Pimenovs, Artūrs Rubiks un Artis Pabriks
15.03.2010.

17.03.2010.

On Compliance of Section 5 (1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court held that the Section 5 (1) of the Law "On State Pension and Benefit Disbursement from 2009 to 2012" complies with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

Case No 2009-38-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sandra Briķe
08.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-11-01

Case No 2009-39-01
On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Iluta Kovaļova, Māra Balode, Ināra Zariņa, Sarmīte Stūrmane, Sandra Zeire, Velta Karzone-Kere, Indra Kreicberga, Antra Tiltiņa un Everita Ancāne
08.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-11-01

Case No 2009-40-01
On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Ināra Zabarovska, Dainis Šaicāns, Helmuts Naglis, Skaidrīte Temļakova, Olita Blūmfelde un Mairita Zadiņa
08.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-11-01

Case No 2009-41-01
On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Žanna Zujeva, Sandra Breča, Ieva Zabarovska, Vija Vjatere, Ilze Ieviņa, Antra Zute, Ilze Ieviņa, Ilga Neimane, Liāna Liepiņa, Agnese Skulme, Inese Kazjonova, Irēna Lavrinoviča, Una Melemeda un Baiba Strauta
08.07.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of Para 17 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2009-11-01

Case No 2009-37-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Judicial Power (in the Wording of the Law of 14 November 2008) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Maija Vētra, Mārīte Vesele, Irēna Cupika, Zeltīte Kusiņa, Arnis Naglis un Dainis Plaudis
30.06.2009.
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Para 7 of Transitional Provis