On the conformity of Paragraph 113 of Cabinet Regulation No. 50 of 21 January 2014, Regulations on Electricity Trade and Use, with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and Section 32, Paragraph five of the Electricity Market Law
Combined case: 2023-33-01
On Conformity of Section 4.15, Clause 2, Sub-clause “b” of the Law On the Register of Enterprises of the Republic of Latvia with Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On the compliance of Section 6(3)(5) of Law on Forensic Experts with Article 101(1) and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 19.1 (1) of Cabinet Regulation 1013 “Procedure for the owner of an apartment in a multi-apartment building to pay for services associated with the use of the apartment property” of 9 December 2008 (in the version effective between 1 October 2013 and 21 November 2019) with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-37-01
On conformity of Section 13, Paragraph two, Clause 3 of the Insolvency Law, insofar as it establishes a prohibition for a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings for the commission of a deliberate criminal offence have been terminated for non-exonerating reasons, to work as an insolvency administrator, with Article 101, Paragraph one and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 19 of Riga City Council binding regulations No RD-23-199-sn “Procedure for the registration and examination of applications for the enrolment of children to Year 1 in Riga municipal education institutions’ of 26 April 2023 with Articles 64, 91, and 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 185, Paragraph four of the Law on Administrative Liability with the fourth sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "District (City) Court" in Section 629(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-40-01
On Compliance of the Words "District (City) Court" in Section 629(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1 and with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-37-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-37-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Paragraph 3 of the Jūrmala City Council Binding Regulation No. 46 of 22 November 2012 “Management and Protection of Jūrmala City Greenery” with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Paragraph 41 and Sub-paragraph 60.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 2 September 2020 No. 560 “Regulations on Electricity Generation Using Renewable Energy Sources, as well as on the Procedure for Price Determination and Supervision” (in the version in force until 31 March 2022) with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 50(1)(1) of the Education Law with Article 106 of the Constitution
On Compliance of Section 8(3)(204) and Section 9(1)(5) of Law On Personal Income Tax with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-13-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Section 6.8 of the Riga Spatial Plan Area Use and Construction Regulations, approved by Riga City Council Binding Regulations No 103 ‘Binding regulations for the use of and construction within the territory of Riga of 15 December 2021, with the first, second, and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2023-27-03
On Compliance of Section 6.8 of the Riga Spatial Plan Area Use and Construction Regulations, approved by Riga City Council Binding Regulations No 103 ‘Binding regulations for the use of and construction within the territory of Riga of 15 December 2021, with the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2023-27-03
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-13-01
On Compliance of Section 6.8 of the Riga Spatial Plan Area Use and Construction Regulations, approved by Riga City Council Binding Regulations No 103 ‘Binding regulations for the use of and construction within the territory of Riga of 15 December 2021, with the first, second, and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-13-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Paragraph seven, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2023-13-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-15-01
On Compliance of Sections 1, 5, 6 and 12 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on Education", insofar as Paragraph 102 is supplemented with the transitional provisions of the Law, and compliance of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Law of 29 September 2022 "Amendments to the Law on General Education" with Article 1 and Article 114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the Law of September 22, 2022 "Amendments to the Animal Protection Law" with Article 1 and the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-09-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 3, Paragraph seven of the law on State Pensions with the first sentence of Section 91 and Section 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the Law of September 22, 2022 "Amendments to the Animal Protection Law" with Article 1, the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Combined case: 2023-09-0106
On Compliance of Paragraph 3 of the Jūrmala City Council Binding Regulation No. 37 of 11 October 2012 "On the Procedure for Granting Property Tax Relief" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Law “Amendments to the Animal Protection Law”, adopted 22 September 2022, with the Section 1 and Section 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On the compliance of paragraph 58 of the transitional provisions of the Immigration Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, as well as with Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Combined case: 2023-04-0106
On the compliance of Paragraph 58 of the Transitional Provisions of the Immigration Law and Article 5 of the Law of September 22, 2022 "Amendments to the Immigration Law", insofar as Paragraph 8 of the first part of Article 24 of the Immigration Law is excluded, with Article 1, 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. to the first sentence of Article and Article 96
Combined case: 2023-04-01
On Compliance of Paragraph 58 of Transitional Provisions of the Immigration Law with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2023-04-01
On Compliance of Paragraph 58 of Transitional Provisions of the Immigration Law with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 38, Paragraph two of the Law On the Time Period of Coming into Force and the Procedures for the Application of the Introduction, Parts on Inheritance Rights and Property Rights of the Renewed Civil Law of 1937 of the Republic of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and the Compliance of Section 38, Paragraphs One and Two of that Law with Article 1 and the First and Third Sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, as well as the Compliance of Section 42, Paragraph Three of the Law On the Time Period of Coming into Force and the Procedures for the Application of the Introduction, Parts on Inheritance Rights and Property Rights of the Renewed Civil Law of 1937 of the Republic of Latvia with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Article 631, part three of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-40-01
On Compliance of Annex 7 to Cabinet Regulation No 935 of 18 December 2012, Regulations Regarding Felling of Trees in Forests”, insofar as it Reduces the Final Felling Diameter According to the Dominant Tree Species and Site Index, with Article 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 48, Paragraph seven of the Electronic Communications Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Article 631, part three of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Article 124, part six, Article 125, part three and Article 126, part 3.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 627, Paragraphs four and five of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph Six of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First and Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Paragraph 7 of the Transitional Provisions of Citizenship Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 4, Paragraph Three, Clauses 1 and 3, Section 4, Paragraphs Five and Nine of the Law On Ports; Paragraph 16, Sub-paragraph 2 of the Transitional Provisions, Section 11, Paragraph Two of the Law of 10 February 2022 "Amendments to the Law On Ports", as well as Section 4, Paragraph One of the Freeport of Ventspils Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 101, Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-17-01
On Compliance of Section 33, Paragraph One of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance and Section 22, Paragraphs Two and Three of the Law On Social Security with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On the compliance of Section 10, Paragraph Two, and Section 15, Paragraph One, Clause 1 of the Military Service Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 10 (2) and Para 1 of Section 15 (1) of the Military Service Law, insofar these provisions prohibit a soldier from being a member of a political party, as compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Table 4 of Annex 1 and Para 7 of Annex 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulations Regarding Remuneration of Teachers” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise the third, fourth and fifth part of Section 56 of the law “On Higher Education Institutions”, insofar they apply to higher education institutions and faculty members thereof, as being incompatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 July 2024.
2. To recognise Section 56 (3) of the law “On Higher Education Institutions” (in the wording, which was in force from 1 May 2021 until 10 October ), insofar this provision applies to higher education institutions and faculty members thereof, are incompatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Para 244 of the Cabinet Regulation of 28 September 2021 No. 662 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
On Compliance of the Oder by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 22 March 2022 No. 1 2/2224 “On Suspending the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 15 December 2021 No. 103 “Binding Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Riga” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Fourth Part of Article 4 and Article 8 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government”, Section 49 (1) of the law “On Local Governments” and Section 27 (3) of the Spatial Development Planning Law
On Compliance of Section 38 (2) of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Section 38, Paragraph Two of the Law “On the Time Period of Coming into Force and the Procedures for the Application of the Introduction, Parts on Inheritance Rights and Property Rights of the Renewed Civil Law of 1937 of the Republic of Latvia” with the first and third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 324 (2) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
On Temporary Additional Requirements for the Work of Members of the Saeima and Councillors of Local Government Councils” with Article 96 and the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 16 of the Advocacy Law of the Republic of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Section 4, Paragraph Three, Clause 1, Section 4, Paragraph Nine, Section 7, Paragraph 11 of the Law on Ports, as well as Paragraph 16, Sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On the Decision of the Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 16 December 2021 No. 1 2/168 "On the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 30 September 2021 No. 38 "Amendments to the Jūrmala City Council Regulation of 12 September 2017 No. 1 2/168" suspension of the Operation of the Binding Regulation No. 1 "On Entry of Vehicles into the Special Regime Zone in the Administrative Territory of the City of Jūrmala"" with Article 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and the Section 10, Paragraph three and Section 12, Paragraph one, Clause 6 of the Law "On Taxes and Fees"
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of Section 627, Paragraph four and five of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
Regarding Compliance of the Order No. 1-2/11040 of 21 December 2021 of the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development "Regarding Suspension of the Effect of Binding Regulations No. 22/2021 of the Ķekava Municipality Council dated 8 September 2021 “Regarding the Operation of Gambling at Ķekava Municipality” with Section 41, Paragraph Two, Clause 11, and Section 42, Paragraph Ten of the Law on Gambling and Lotteries, as well as with Section 49, Paragraph One of the Law On Local Governments
The Constitutional Court ruled as follows:
To recognise the Order No. 1-2/11040 of 21 December 2021 of the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development "Regarding Suspension of the Effect of the Binding Regulation No. 22/2021 of the Ķekava Municipality Council dated 8 September 2021 “Regarding the Operation of Gambling at Ķekava Municipality” as being compatible with Section 41, Paragraph Two, Clause 11, and Section 42, Paragraph Ten of the Law on Gambling and Lotteries, as well as with Section 49, Paragraph One of the Law On Local Governments”.
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of Article 38 paragraph 1 and the first and second phrase of paragraph 2 of the Law “on the entry into force and implementation arrangements for the introductory part of the re-established Civil Code of the Republic of Latvia of 1937 and the parts governing inheritance law and rights in rem” with the Articles 1 and 91, and the first and third phrase of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 23 of the Punishment Register Law, insofar it applies to information about an acquitted person, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Section 23(1) of the Punishment Register Law, insofar as it relates to information on acquitted persons, as incompatible with Section 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and null and void as of 1 July 2023.
2. In relation to acquitted persons who have started protection of their fundamental rights through general legal remedies, to declare Section 23(1) of the Punishment Register Law, insofar as it relates to information about the acquitted person, as incompatible with Section 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and null and void from the moment when the infringement of the fundamental rights of the person occurred.
On Compliance of Section 169 (6) of the Insolvency Law with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court resolved as follows:
To declare Section 169, Paragraph Six of the Insolvency Law, insofar as it relates to the provisions of Section 22, Paragraph Two, Clauses 1 and 2, as well as Section 20, Paragraph One, Clause 7, of the Insolvency Law to be compliant with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of the number and word “10 years”, included in Para 531 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulation on Producing Electricity and Setting Prices in Producing Electrocity in Cogeneration”, and the number and word “10 years”, included in Para 68, of the Cabinet Regulation of 2 September 2020 No. 561 “Regulation on Producing Electricity, Supervision and Setting Prices in Producing Electrocity in Cogeneration”, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
to recognize Clause 53.1 and the number and word “10 years” of Cabinet Regulation No. 221 (adopted on 10 March 2009) “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and Clause 68 and the number and word “10 years” of Cabinet Regulation No. 561 (adopted 2 September 2020) “Regulations Regarding the Generation, Supervision, and Pricing of Electricity in Generation of Electricity in Cogeneration” as complying with Section 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Complianceof Section 43 (4) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 43 (4) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage the right of a legal person governed by private law to request the court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the State fee for submitting the statement of claim, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 October 2023.
2. With respect to merchant IMEX PROVIDER LTD, registered in the British Virgin Islands, to recognise Section 43 (4) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage the right of a legal person governed by private law to request the court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the State fee for submitting the statement of claim, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on its fundamental rights occurred.
On compliance of the first and the second part of Section 38 of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and Article 91, as well as the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and compliance of Section 42 (3) of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Complinace of Section 534, 5341, 535, 536 and 537 with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
to declare Sections 534, 534.1, 535, 536 and 537 of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar as they do not provide for supervision of arbitration proceedings in cases where the interested party does not apply to a court of general jurisdiction for enforcement of an Arbitration Court judgment for a long time, when such judgement was to be recognised and enforced abroad, or when it was not necessary to apply to a court of general jurisdiction for the issue of a writ of execution to enforce such judgment, to be incompatible with Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia as of 1 March 2024.
On compliance of the first and the second part of Section 38, as well as of Section 42 (1) of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and Article 91, as well as the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 56(3), 56(4) and 56(5) of the Law on Institutions of Higher Education with Articles 105, 112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 56(3), 56(4) and 56(5) of the Law on Institutions of Higher Education with Articles 105, 112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Section 6, Clause 2 of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils as not conforming to the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph two of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of person J, to declare Section 6, Clause 2 of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils of the Republic of Latvia as not conforming to the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph two of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment when the infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned occurred.
On Compliance of Section 500 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
to declare Section 500, Paragraph six of the Criminal Procedure Law compatible with Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 55 of the Law “On Judicial Power” with the First Part of Article 101 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 7 (4) of the Law on the Procedures for Holding Detained Persons” and Annex 4 to the Cabinet Regulation of 10 January 2006 No. 38 “Regulations regarding Nutritional Provision Norms and Provision Norms of Washing Products and Personal Hygiene Products for Persons Placed in a Short-term Place of Detention” with the Second Sentence of Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of the Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to Cases of Compulsory Land Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-24-01
On Compliance of Para 31 of Section 529 (1) and Section 550 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To recognise Section 529, Paragraph One, Clause 31 and Section 550, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar as it relates to the time limit for submitting an appeal in particularly complex and voluminous criminal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of paragraph 2418 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures for the containment of the spread of COVID-19 infection’ (in the wording that was in force from 7 April 2021 until 19 May 2021) with the first sentence of Article 91, the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-24-03
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing Political Organisations (Parties) with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing
Political Organisations (Parties) (in the wording that was in force from
1 January 2020 until 1 January 2022) as being compatible with the first
sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On the compliance of Section 82(1) of the Criminal Law in the wording which was in force from 1 April 2013 until 10 May 2016 with the first sentence of Article 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, and on the compliance of the transitional provision of the law of 21 April 2016 ‘Amendments to the Criminal Law’ with Article 1 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court resolved:
To terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2021-34-01 “On Compliance of Section 82, Paragraph One of the Criminal Law in the Wording Effective from 1 April 2013 to 10 May 2016 with the First Sentence of Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of the Transitional Provision of the Law “Amendments to the Criminal Law” of 21 April 2016 with Article 1 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On compliance of paragraph 8 of Section 4(1) of the Law on the Management of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection, paragraphs 11 and 124 of Section 1 and paragraph 45 of Section 14 of the Education Law, as well as sub-paragraph 27.1.3, paragraph 327(2) and (3) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 'Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection’ with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
1. To dismiss the proceedings in the case in the part concerning compliance of Article 14, Clause 45 of the Education Law with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To declare Article 1, Clauses 1 1 and 12 4 of the Education Law, insofar as it relates to the organisation of the education process during the spread of Covid-19 infection, as well as Article 4, part one, Clause 8 of the Management Law of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection compliant with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To declare sub-paragraph 27.1.3 (in the wording effective from 17 September 2020 to 19 August 2021), Clause 32 7, sub-paragraph 2 (in the wording effective from 17 September 2020 to 19 August 2021) and sub-paragraph 3 (in the wording effective from 17 September 2020 to 19 August 2021) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No 360 of 9 June 2020 "Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection” compliant with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of paragraph 10 of Section 13(1) of the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest and of paragraph 10 of Annex 4 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 800 of 27 November 2007 ‘Internal procedure regulations of investigation prisons’ with the first sentence of Article 101 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To recognise Section 13, Paragraph One, Clause 10 of the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest and Paragraph 10 of Annex 4 to Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 800 of 27 November 2007 “Internal Rules of Conduct of Investigation Prison” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 101 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 313(1) and (3) of the Electricity Market Law and paragraphs 21.3, 28, 30, 31, 48.4 of and Annex 3 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 560 of 2 September 2020 ‘Regulation on the production of electricity using renewable energy sources, as well as on price determination procedures and control’ with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of paragraph 2418 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures for the containment of the spread of COVID-19 infection’ (in the wording that was in force from 7 April 2021 until 1 June 2021) with the first sentence of Article 91, the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-24-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On the compliance of the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To recognise the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law as being compatible with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and null and void as of 1 January 2023.
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 ‘Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual’ (in the wording which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable cost, related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. With respect to the limited liability company “TAVEX” and persons, who have started and continue defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on the respective person’s fundamental rights occurred.
3. To recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which is in force from 10 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
4. With respect to persons, who have started and continue defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which is in force from 10 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on the respective person’s fundamental rights occurred.
On compliance of paragraph 2418 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures for the containment of the spread of COVID-19 infection’ (in the wording that was in force from 7 April 2021 until 19 May 2021) with the first sentence of Article 91, the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
1 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 19 May 2021, insofar as it applies to a trader whose shop has been arranged on the premises of a large shopping centre and can be provided with a separate external access, and whose shop is not subject to the exceptions stipulated in this norm, as being non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2 With regard to the LLC (SIA) “Jysk Linnen'n Furniture”, to recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 19 May 2021, insofar as it applies to a trader whose shop has been arranged on the premises of a large shopping centre and can be provided with a separate external access, and whose shop is not subject to the exceptions stipulated in this norm, as null and void as of 7 April 2021.
3 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as being compliant with the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
4 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as being non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
5 With regard to the LLC (SIA) “VRPB” and the LLC (SIA) “EfTEN Domina”, to recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as null and void as of 7 April 2021.
On compliance of Section 32(4) and (8) of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils with Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To recognise Section 32, Paragraphs Four and Eight of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils, insofar as these norms deny suspects, accused or defendants who being imposed custody as a restraint measure from voting in the election of local government councils, if these persons are in a place of incarceration located beyond the territory of the electoral district in the electoral roll of which they are registered, as being incompatible with Article 101, Paragraph One and the first sentence of Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. With regard to Mr Aivars Lembergs – to recognise Section 32, Paragraphs Four and Eight of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils, insofar as these norms deny him from voting in the election of local government councils, if he is in a place of incarceration located beyond the territory of the electoral district in the electoral roll of which he is registered, as being incompatible with Article 101, Paragraph One and the first sentence of Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the moment of occurrence of infringement of his fundamental rights.
On compliance of the second sentence of Section 4441(3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording which was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) and the second sentence of Section 431 (2), insofar these norms do not provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. With respect to “WINNER”, Ltd., undergoing liquidation, to recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021), insofar it does provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on its fundamental rights occurred.
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.1 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Articles 64 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.1 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Articles 64 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On the compliance of Section 7011(4) of the Criminal Law and Section 358(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second, and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-18-01
On the compliance of Section 7011(4) of the Criminal Law and Section 358(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To dismiss proceedings in respect of the claim of the Joint-Stock Company under liquidation “TRASTA KOMERCBANKA” on compliance of Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To dismiss proceedings in respect of the claim of ERGO TEC LLP, a merchant registered in the United Kingdom, on compliance of Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To recognise Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On the compliance of paragraph 11 (in the wording which was in force until 31 December 2020) of Riga City Council binding regulation No 111 of 18 December 2019 ‘Procedure for granting real estate tax benefits in Riga’ with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To declare that Clause 11 of the Riga City Council Biding Regulation No 111 of 18 December 2019 “Procedures for Granting the Real Estate Tax Relief in Riga” (wording effective until 31 December 2020) does not comply with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, and as regards those persons who have commenced their right protection with general remedies, it shall be invalid from the date of its entry into force.
On the compliance of Section 10(2) and Paragraph 1 of Section 15(1) of the Military Service Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On the compliance of Paragraph 353 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures to contain the spread of Covid-19 infection’ with the second sentence of Article 98 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided: to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2021-10-03 "On Compliance of Paragraph 35.3of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 9 June 2020 No. 360 "Epidemiological Security Measures to Limit the Spread of Covid-19 Infection" with the Second Sentence of Section 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia".
On the compliance of Section 91(2) of the Law on the Road User Charge in the wording which was in force until 30 June 2020, and of Section 14940(2) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code in the wording which was in force from 1 January 2017 until 30 June 2020 with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
Combined case: 2021-03-03
On compliance of Section 14(6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 14 (6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities, insofar it does not provide for the right of officials with special service ranks of the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prison Administration to receive commensurate remuneration for work done on public holidays, as being incompatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2023.
2. With respect to persons, who have begun defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise Section 14 (6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities, insofar it does not provide for the right of officials with special service ranks of the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prison Administration to receive commensurate remuneration for work done on public holidays, as being incompatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement of these persons’ fundamental rights occurred.
On the compliance of Section 11(31) and Section 111(61) of the law ‘On Personal Income Tax’ with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 242(5) with Articles 96 and 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To dismiss proceedings in the case in the part concerning compliance of Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law, insofar as it establishes an absolute prohibition for a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence related to violence or threat of violence to be a guardian, regardless of expungement or setting aside of conviction, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. With regard to the persons to whom Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law has been applied and who have commenced and continue proceedings for the protection of their fundamental rights by general means for the protection of rights, to recognise Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law, insofar as it establishes an absolute prohibition for a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence related to violence or threat of violence to be a guardian, regardless of expungement or setting aside of conviction, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the day of occurrence of infringement of fundamental rights of these persons.
On compliance of para 53 of part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) ‘List of public lakes and rivers’ to the Civil Law with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-63-01
On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.1 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Articles 64 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law
The Constitutional Court held as follows:
1. To recognise Paragraph 88 (in the wording that was in force until 12 August 2021) and Paragraph 89 (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 78 of 7 February 2017 “Regulations on Natural Gas Trade and Use” as being incompatible with Articles 64 and 105 of the Satversme and Section 107, Paragraph Seven of the Energy Law of the Republic of Latvia and, with regard to persons to whom it has been or should be applied in court, as null and void from the date of issue.
2. To recognise Paragraph 88 and Paragraph 89 (in the wording that was in force from 25 January 2020 until 12 August 2021 and in the current wording), and Paragraph 891 (in the wording that was in force until 12 August 2021) of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 78 of 7 February 2017 “Regulations on Natural Gas Trade and Use” as being incompatible with Articles 64 and 105 of the Satversme and Section 107, Paragraph Seven of the Energy Law of the Republic of Latvia and, with regard to persons to whom it has been or should be applied in court, as null and void from the date of issue.
On compliance of para 56 of part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) ‘List of public lakes and rivers’ to the Civil Law with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-63-01
On compliance of sub-paragraphs 16.2, 16.5, 16.11, 16.14, 16.18, 16.19 and 16.20 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, Article 4(3), (6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-64-0106
On compliance of Annex 1 to Cabinet Regulation No 810 of 13 December 2016 on classification of offices of officials with special service ranks working in institutions of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration, insofar as it requires a Group 2.1, Level VII college director to hold a higher special service rank – colonel, with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of sub-paragraphs 27.1 and 27.3 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-64-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 10.2., 10.6., 10.7., 10.8., 10.17., 10.18., 10.21. and 10.23. “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1 and the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Para 34 of Part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) to the Civil Law “List of Public Lakes and Rivers” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of 32.1. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-43-0106
On Compliance of Sub-23.3., 23.4., 23.5., 23.6., 23.14. and 23.15 of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the First Sentence of the Second Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Section 71 (3) of the Road Traffic Law with the First, Second and Third Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para 8.5., 8.7., 8.8., 8.16., 8.17., 8.19. and 8.20. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 18.1., 18.1. and 18.10. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Combined case: 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 12.10. and 12.13. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 13.13, 13.16. and 13.20. “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of the Words in Para 31 of Section 1(2) “or other operating aid for the production of electricity” and the First and the Second Part of Section 304 and Para 83 of the Transitional Provisions of the Electricity Market Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-52-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 314 (1) of the Electricity Market Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para 23.1, 23.2., 23.8., 23.12. and 23.13. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 4 of 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 101 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 8 and the Second and the Third Part of Section 8.1 of the Law “On Control of Aid for Commercial Activity” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”
The Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate the proceedings with regard to the compliance of Section 81(2)(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Articles 1, 91, 92 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To terminate the proceedings with regard to the compliance of Section 8(1), Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 81(2) and Section 81(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with the principle of separation of powers and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To declare Section 8(1), Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 81(2) and Section 81(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity compliant with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Sub-para 39.1, 39.8., 39.9., 39.12., 39.19. and 39.22. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 41.14., 41.15., 41.18., 41.22. and 41.23. “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 13.8. and 13.9. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 31.15., 31.29. and 31.30. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-43-0106
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para 32.4. and 36.2. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1 and the First Sentence of the Second Part Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
On Compliance of Sub-para 11.2. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1 and the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 19.18. and 19.20. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1 and the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
On Compliance of the Programme and Sub-programme for Increasing the Remuneration for Work to Health Care Workers of the Law “On the State Budget for 2020”, insofar they do not Envisage an Increase of the State Financing for Increasing the Remuneration for Work to Health Care Workers Set in Para 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Health Care Financing Law, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled:
To recognise the programmes and sub-programmes of the law ‘On the State Budget for 2020’ which set out the remuneration of health care workers, insofar as they do not make provision for State funding to increase the remuneration of health care workers in 2020 as set in Paragraph 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Health Care Financing Law, as being compatible with Articles 1 and 66 of the Constitution.
On Compliance of Para “c” of Article 3, Para 3 of Article 4 and Para 1 of Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention of 11 May 2011 on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence with the Preamble, Article 1, Article 99 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 4 of its Article 4 with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and its Article 14 with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court
held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding
compliance of Para “c” of Article 3, Para 3 of Article 4 and Para 1 of Article 12
of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence
against Women and Domestic Violence with the Preamble, Article 1, Article 99
and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and compliance of
Para 14 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating
Violence against Women and Domestic Violence with Article 112 of the
Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 4 of Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
as being compatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Sub-para 28.2. and 28.19. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: Nr.2020-37-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 35.4. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
The Constitutional Court ruled:
To terminate the legal proceedings in the case insofar as it concerns the compliance of subparagraphs 28.2, 28.19 and 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Article 4(3) of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
To recognise subparagraph 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being compatible with Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
To recognise subparagraph 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being incompatible with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise subparagraphs 28.2 and 28.19 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being compatible with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 72 (5) of Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 6 (5) of the Law “On State Social Insurance” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 13 of the Cabinet Regulation of 27 October 2009 No. 1250 “Regulation Regarding State Fee for Registering Ownership Rights and Pledge Rights in the Land Register” with Article 91, Article 105 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Section 34 (1) of the Law “On Taxes and Duties, insofar it Envisages Calculation and Collection from the Taxpayer a Fine in the Amount of 100 Per Cent of the Underpaid Tax Due to the Budget, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of Jānis Pīlāts and those taxpayers who have initiated and continue the process of protecting their fundamental rights using general legal remedies, to recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void as from the moment when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.
3. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for a failure to submit, within 30 days after the deadline set by the tax authority, tax declarations specified in tax laws, as well as the business and accounting records requested by the tax authority, without which the tax administration officers (employees) are unable to determine the amount of tax liability, as being compatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Interdiction to obtain security guard's licence for persons with alcohol dependenceOn Compliance of Para 2 and Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Minimum amount of old age pension II (New Cabinet regulations)Combined case: Nr.2020-07-03
On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Prohibition to provide gambling services Covid 19Combined case: 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Case short name: Prohibition to provide on-line gambling services Covid 19On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 od the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gas (legal persons)Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to the Leasing of Land in Cases of Enforced Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: VAT applied to compulsory leaseOn compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Clarity and retroactive force of Criminal Law provisions on negligent storage of firearmsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 March 2013) as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Transitional Provision of the law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law”, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law with respect to offences, which subsequently have been recognised as being criminally unpunishable, as being incompatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and with respect to persons, to which this provision, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of amendments to Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law, has been applied or should be applied in court, as invalid from the moment when the violation of fundamental rights occurred.
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Recusal against a judge deciding on the initiation of Cassation proceedings (2019-23-01)On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 45 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Prohibition to meet other detaineesThe Constitutional Court held:
1) To declare the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2) With regard to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Artjoms Zablockis, to recognise the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment of occurrence of the violation of his fundamental rights.
On Compliance of Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 of the First Part and the Second Part of Section 16 of the Law “On State Pensions” as well as Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Social security benefits (II) (invalidity pension)On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 37 (4) of “Law on Governance of Capital Shares of a Public Person and Capital Companies” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Interdiction to be a board member in a State owned capital company for a convicted personOn Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Dissolution of the local government of RigaOn Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 37 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Returning of a State fee in Civil proceedingsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. With respect to Jurijs Kapišņikovs, Ināra Kapišņikova and Eduards Kapišņikovs, to recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.
On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Benefits for parents with preterm born childrenThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2 of Section 104 (4) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Action for a negative declarationThe Constitutional Court resolved:
To terminate legal proceedings on compliance of Section 1, Clause 14, Sub-clause “c” of the Value Added Tax Law, insofar as it applies to the leasing of land in cases of compulsory lease, with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second and third sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia".
On Compliance of Sub-para 2.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 December 2011 No. 924 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension”, Sub-para 2.1. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” (in the wording that was in force until 31 December 2019) as well as Para 2 and Sub-para 3.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Amount of the Minimal State Old-age Pension
Case short name: Minimum old age pension amountOn Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not Envisage Repayment of the State Fee Paid of a Notice of Appeal if the Notice of Appeal is Dismissed, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: State fee in the case of dismissal of an appealThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage repayment of the State fee paid of a notice of appeal if the notice of appeal is dismissed due to its incompatibility with formal requirements, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para 18.12. of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 May 2011 No. 378 “Procedures for Advertising Medicinal Products and Procedures by Which a Medicinal Product Manufacturer is Entitled to Give Free Samples of Medicinal Products to Physicians” with Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third Part of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Case short name: Advertising of medicinal productsOn Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gasOn Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Social security for persons with invalidityThe Court held:
to recognise Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002), insofar it does not envisage subjecting persons with group I and II disabilities to disability insurance, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date it entered into force.
On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Appeal against the Entry ban adopted by the Minister of InteriorThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 61 (8) of the Immigration Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 March 2021.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the part of the case with respect to the compliance of Section 63 (7) of the Immigration Law with the first sentence of Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, on Compliance of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016), as well as Compliance of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On compliance of Section 155(1) of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Absence leave for the partner of the childs motherOn Compliance of Section 49.2 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Short term leave of a detention facility in case of a death of a relativeThe Constitutional Court held:
1) To recognise Section 492(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article96 of the Satversme oft he Republic of Latvia.
2) With respect to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Juris Krasovskis, to recognise Section 492(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on his fundamental rights occurred.
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On compliance of the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, insofar these do not envisage annual increase of the State-allocated financing for studies in State-founded institutions of higher education in the amount no less than 0.25 per cent of the gross domestic product, as provided for in Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Education budgetOn Compliance of Decision No. 1/7 of 18 April 2019 by the Board of the Public Utilities Commission “Regulation on the Connection to the Natural Gas Transmission System for Biomethane Producers, Liquefied Natural Gas System Operators and Natural Gas Users” with Article 1, Article 64, Article 89 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as Section 45 (7) and Section 841 (1) of the Energy Law and the Compliance of Section 841(1) of the Energy Law with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Connection of Natural gas customers to the transmission systemOn Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Amount of the Social security benefitsOn Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Procedure to recognise a person as needyThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Guaranteed minimum incomeThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 464 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 2 January 2004 to 31 March 2013, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Clarity of the notion "Public official" in the Criminal LawOn Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2019-21-01 “On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” with Article 64, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of pre-school educationThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 112, Article 114, Article 91 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self Government
Case short name: Suspension of population consulation of IkšķileThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 464(41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On compliance of the third sentence of Section 564(7) and Section 570(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: Time limits for submitting a cassation appeal in criminal proceedingsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognises the third sentence of Section 564 (7) and Section 570 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Spatial planning of AmataThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Refusal to Initiate Cassation proceedings in Civil Procedure without statement of reasonsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it applied to the decision on the refusal to initiate cassation legal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Education in the State language in higher education institutionsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To divide case No. 2019-12-01 into cases:
a) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and
b) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
2. To recognise the third sentence of Section 5 (1) of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar it applies to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being compatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To recognise Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar these norms apply to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being incompatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.
4.To resume examination of the case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” on its merits at a court hearing on 14 July 2020 in written procedure.
On Compliance of Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Refusal to initiate Cassation proceedings in Civil Proceedings in property disputes under 2000 eurosThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gasThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force from 4 July 2008 until 7 March 2016) as being compatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme;
2) to recognise Para 56, Para 58 and Para 87 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme with respect to persons, to whom these norms had been applied or should be applied in court, as of the date of their adoption.
On Compliance of Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Funding of the activities of the Financial and capital market commissionThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Removal of a Member of the Parliament after consent for criminal prosecutionThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding the compliance of the second sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the second and the third sentence of Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the first sentence of Article 19 as being incompatible with Article 5, the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to Juris Jurašs, void as of 31 January 2019.
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditCombined case: 2019-05-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2018-22-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 8 (23) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IVCombined case: 2018-22-01
A case initiated with respect to restrictions on combining the offices of a local government’s councillor
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 4 of Section 38 (2) of the law “On Local Governments” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
A case initiated with respect to the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science
Case short name: Experts of Latvian Council of ScienceThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law provides that the adopter may not be a person, who has been punished for criminal offences related to violence of threatening of violence, regardless of extinguishing of the criminal record or removal thereof.
Case short name: Adoption banThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) with respect to persons, who have started defending their rights by general legal remedies, to recongise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when it was applied to these persons by the Orphan’s Court.
On Compliance of Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter – the Code) establishes the regime for serving the sentence in closed prisons, inter alia, that men, who have been sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for committing a serious or a particularly serious crime, serve the sentence in a closed prison.
Case short name: Regime of penalty execution for menThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar the differential treatment of convicted men established in it lacks objective and reasonable grounds, as being incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”
Case short name: Surveillance of the correspondence of the detaineesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 28 (2) of the law “On the Procedure for Holding under Arrest”, in the wording that was in force until 2 January 2018, insofar it envisages control of correspondence for the whole duration of arrest without an individual assessment of circumstances and without an identified threat to other persons’ rights or public security, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme and with respect to persons, to whom this norm had been applied and who have begun defending their rights in the framework of an administrative procedure but with respect to whom the administrative proceedings have not been concluded yet, as void as of the moment when the infringement on the rights of these persons occurred.
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Items allowed in the detention facilitiesThe Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his or her studies in order to acquire higher level education, as incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of the Applicant Ansis Ataols Bērziņš, to declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his studies in order to acquire higher level education, to be incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment of the infringement of his fundamental rights.
On Compliance of Section 1(1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IIIThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 9 (11) of the Education Law as being compatible with Article 1, the second sentence of Article 91, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances”, insofar these Apply to Remuneration for Performing the Duties of a Guardian, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Benefits for the legal guardian residing abroadThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the words “and who permanently reside in the territory of Latvia” of Section 4 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019), insofar these apply to performance of the duties of a guardian, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void with respect to persons, to whom these legal norms had been applied or would have to be applied in the framework of administrative proceedings and who have begun to defend their fundamental rights in the framework of administrative proceedings, as of the moment when the infringement on the fundamental rights of these persons occurred.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 27 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IIThe Constitutional Court decided
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-20-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 2 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme
Case short name: Cargo evaporationsOn Compliance of Section 141 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Access to information from the National vehicle and driver information systemThe Constitutional Court decided:
to declare Section 14.1(2) of the Road Traffic Law, insofar as it stipulates that information on the penalty points imposed for road traffic offences is generally accessible information, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the date of entering into force of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Gambling establishments in the historic centre of RigaThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” as being compatible with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 9 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 63. 8, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Overcompensation calculation for the mandatory procurement of electricityOn Compliance of Section 27 (5) and Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IOn Compliance of Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Overtime work for persons employed in the Prisons AdministrationThe Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as void as of the moment when a person’s fundamental rights were infringed upon with respect to all persons, who, to defend their rights, have turned to a court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings in the court have not been completed yet, as well as to such persons, who, to defend their rights have turned to the court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings already have been completed.
On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205 97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Access to standards for constructionOn Compliance of the First Part of Section 1, the Words of the Second Part of Section 1 “on the level of pre-school education and basic education, abiding by the provisions of Section 41 of this Law”, the words of the First Part of Section 3 “primary education” and Section 2 of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IIOn Compliance of Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (92) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Public access to the information concerning the amount of remuneration of state officials and employeesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (92) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.
On Compliance of Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, with Article 90 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Sub-para ”e” of Annex 10A905 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the Wording that was in Force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Criminal liability for the violation of rules on the circulation of goods of strategic significanceThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the wording that was in force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia;
to recognise sub-para “e” of section 10A905 of the Annex to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the wording that was in force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Eighth Part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation” with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Storage of seized goodsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the eighth part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, in the wording that was in force until 4 July 2018, and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation , insofar the obligation was derived from them for a person, who had been made administratively liable, to cover the expenditures of storing the property removed in the case of administrative violation until the moment when the decision of making this person administratively liable became enforceable, as being compatible with Article 105 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 18 and Para 20 of the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 4 September 2014 No. 27 “Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Rental payment for a graveOn Suspending Para 1, in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” with Section 49 of the Law “On Local Governments”
Case short name: Parents' obligation to make a partial payment for the catering costs for childrenThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 26 September 2017 No. 1-2/7346 “On Suspending Sub-para 1.3., in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” (minutes No. 103, Para 13) as being compatible with Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”.
On Compliance of Section 12 (1) of the Law “On State Social Allowances” and Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work “ with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Transportation benefits for persons with disabilitiesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 12 (1) of the law “On State Social Allowance” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme;
to recognise Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work”, insofar it does not envisage the granting of the transport mobility to a disabled person with restricted mobility, who has mental health disorders, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date of its adoption.
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Combined case: 2018-01-01
On Compliance of Section 7 (3) of the Law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it does no Provide for Cessation of the Duty to Pay Additional Immovable Property Tax Rate for Agricultural Land that is not being Farmed, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 7 (3) of the law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it did no provide for cessation of the duty to pay additional immovable property tax rate for agricultural land that was not being farmed as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-34-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-34-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Administrative Violations Procedure - AppealThe Constitutional Court held:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-01-01 “On Compliance of the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Sub-para 3.2.1. of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 9 June 2015 No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 Nr. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 No. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme.
On compliance of the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development (hereinafter also – the Minister) No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”
Case short name: Local Governments' Standing CommitteesOn compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Section 26 (1), the First Sentence of Para 12 of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they Set the Obligation to Indicate in the Statement of Claim the Declared Place of Residence of the Defendant, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 26 (1), the first sentence of Para 12of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they set the obligation to indicate in the statement of claim the declared place of residence of the defendant as being compatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Para 31 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 18 and the First Part of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case short name: The Real Estate Tax and ForeignersOn Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.
The judgement will be published in the official journal “Latvijas Vēstnesis” within the term set in Section 33 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law.
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Restrictions on the Voting Rights IIIThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law as being compatible with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and is not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 213 and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2016-16-01
On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Refusal to Initiate Cassation Legal Proceedings in Criminal ProcedureThe Constitutional Court held:
1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: The Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance (Subrogation Claim)The Constitutional Court held :
to recognise Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 November 2007 to 15 December 2017) as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to persons, to whom it has been applied in court or should be applied in court in legal proceedings that already have been initiated, becomes invalid as of the moment when the infringement upon the fundamental rights of these persons occurred..
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.
On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Official Secrets (Industrial Security Certificate)The Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in the case No. 2017‑20‑0103 “On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: Mitigation of the Regime for Serving a SentenceThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-19-01 “On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On compliance of Section 7(2) and Section 8(4) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and on compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 91, 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: ChurchesThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 7 (2) of the Law on Religious Organisations, insofar it does not envisage to the congregations, which are commencing their activities in the Republic of Latvia and are not affiliated with the religious associations (churches) that are already registered in the state, the right to establish a religious organisation (church) before the re-registration term of ten years has expired, as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 7 (3) and Section 8 (4) of the Law on Religious Organisations as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compulsory Lease IVThe Constitutional Court ruled to recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and void as of 1 May 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of its pronouncement.
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: The Administrative Violations Code - the Court's Objectivity and AppealThe Constitutional Court has ruled:
1. to recognise Section 213 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;
2. to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether the initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 30 November 2018;
3. with regard to the applicant Alvis Hāzis, to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publication of this judgment;
4. to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage an obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;
5. with regard to the applicants Aleksejs Stepanovs, Alvis Hāzis, Raimonds Bētiņš, Mārtiņš Kalniņs and the limited liability company “Alcamo”, as well as the individuals who, for protection of their fundamental rights, applied to the Constitutional Court before the day of coming into force of this judgment, to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage the obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment the infringement of a corresponding applicant’s fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 531 (7) of Medical Treatment Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Doctors' Overtime WorkThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 31 of the Transitional Provisions of Medical Treatment Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.
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
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Prosecutors' SalariesThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-13-01 “On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On compliance of Part 123 and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar as they restrict the right to have tax overpayment refunded within a reasonable term, with the first, second and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Refund of Overpaid VATThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
respect to all persons, to whom the contested norms had been applied and who had begun protecting their rights in the procedure established by the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings had not been concluded yet, to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 91 of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 June 2014 No. 350 “Procedure for Evaluating Professional Activities of Teachers” with Article 1, 64 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and with the First and the Third Part of Section 491 of Education Law, and of Para 27 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulation on Remuneration for Teachers’ Work” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Evaluation of TeachersThe Constitutional Court decided to recognise Para 91 of Regulation No. 350 and Para 27 of Regulation No. 445 as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment of their adoption.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal; it will enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 629 (5) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and on Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 631 (3) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Accessibility of Case Materials and the Appealability of a DecisionThe Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Section 629(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent a court does not have the right to re-examine the legality and validity of the decision taken by the person directing the proceedings on a person’s right to familiarise himself with materials in the case, as being invalid with respect to IMEX PROVIDER LTD as of the moment when the infringement of fundamental rights occurred, taking into consideration the judgement by the Constitutional Court of 23 May 2017 in case No. 2016-13-01.
To recognise the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 104(1) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013) with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Parents' Benefit (of a Self-employed Person)The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Court's Right to Amend an Administrative Actthe Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On compliance of Section 50(1) of the Education Law, insofar it denies the persons who have been punished for serious or particularly serious offences the right to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher, with Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia
Case short name: Teachers and Persons Punished for Severe CrimesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 1 of Section 50 of Education Law, insofar as it denies a person, who has been punished for serious or particularly serious crimes, to work as a teacher, as being incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 June 2018.
The judgement is final and not subject to appeal. The judgement shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
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
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
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
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Teachers' LoyaltyThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the fourth and the sixth part of Section 30, the fifth and the sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the first part of Section 51 of Education Law as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On Compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, insofar it Applies to Moto Racing Tracks Located within a Territory, where Individual Residential Houses and High-Rise Residential Houses are Built, with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Noise in Moto and Auto Racing TracksThe Constitutional Court decided:
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” as being compatible with Section 181 (3) of the Law “On Pollution”.
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, as well as Sub-para 2.4. of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and moto sports events which are held in open-air auto and moto racing tracks located in a populated area (city or village) and for which a permit for organising a public event has been issued in the procedure set out in the Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” with respect to the applicant in the administrative case No. A420346615 – Elza Freiberga – as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the infringement on her fundamental rights occurred.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Signs of Street NamesThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judges'Salaries IVThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognised the first sentence of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is valid and not subject to appeal, it enters in force on the day it is pronounced.
Combined case: 2016-16-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Para 2361 “Use of Territory and Construction Rules” of Binding Regulation No.8 of 24 March 2016 by Jūrmala City Council “On Approving the Graphic Part, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Construction in the Spatial Plan of Jūrmala City” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan in Jūrmala, BulduriThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 12.1.1 and Para 60 of the Cabinet Regulation of 13 October 2015 No. 591 “Procedure in which Learners are Enrolled at and Discharged from Institutions of General Education and Special Pre-school Education Groups, as well as Moved to a Higher Form” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Minimum Number of StudentsThe Constitutional Court ruled:
To recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment they were adopted.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it its published.
Combined case: 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
Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency AdministratorThe Court’s Findings and Decisions:
On 6 January 2017 the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” entered into force, by which, inter alia, Section 17 was deleted from the Insolvency Law.
Pursuant to Para 2 of Section 29 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, legal proceedings in a case may be terminated before a judgement is pronounced by a decision of the Constitutional Court, if the contested legal form has become invalid. In assessing, whether there were grounds for terminating legal proceedings in the case, the Constitutional Court examined: 1) whether the contested norm had become invalid; and 2) whether no circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were present.
The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the Insolvency Law that were currently in force did not comprise such grounds for terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate as the one that was included in the contested norm. Legal regulation on terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate and removing an administrator from office has changed substantially. Thus, the contested norm has become invalid.
In examining, whether no circumstances existed requiring continuation of legal proceedings, the Constitutional Court assessed, whether the fact that the contested norm had become invalid was sufficient grounds for considering that the violation of a person’s fundamental rights caused by the contested norm had been eliminated.
The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm did not violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the administrative cases regarding terminating the operation of administrator’s certificates that had been issued to them had been terminated. I.e., the applicants still have valid administrators’ certificates. Thus, there are no circumstances in the case that would require continuation of legal proceedings and the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings.
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
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
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
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Legal PersonsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3 and Section 5 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
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
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural PersonsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of the Fifth Part of Section 629 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Accessibility of Case MaterialsThe Constitutional Court held:
The contested norm, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
With respect to the limited liability company “Cell Finance”, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme as of the moment when the violation of fundamental right occurred.
The Judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 5021 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Increasing the Regime for Serving a SentenceThe Constitutional Court decided:
The recognise the contested norm, insofar it applies to a decision on increasing a sentenced prisoner’s regime for serving the sentence, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2018.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and is not subject to appeal, it has entered into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 11(4) of the Law “On State Pensions” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old Age Pension (Retirement before the Full Retirement Age)The Constitutional Court ruled:
The contested norm, insofar it denies to a person the right to retire before reaching the full retirement age and demands establishing that the child’s disability had been recognised in accordance with criteria for granting disability status envisaged in regulatory enactments of the USSR, is to be recognised as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.
With respect to persons, who have started protecting their rights in procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and to whom the contested norm is applicable, it is recognised as being invalid as of the moment of its adoption.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the date of its publication.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, as Practitioners of Private ProfessionsOn 6 April 2017 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-10-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 222 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Pre-election Campaigning on the InternetOn 18 January 2017 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-09-01 “On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Expropriation of Immovable Property (Tīnūži Road)The Constitutional Court decided to recognise law “On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Bona fide AcquirersThe 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.
On compliance of the fifth part of Section 11 and the third and fourth part of Section 13 of the law “On Official Secrets” with the first sentence of Article 92, Article 96 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Official SecretsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the part regarding compliance of Section 11 (5) and Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)of the law “On Official Secrets”with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Section 11 (5) and Section 13 (3) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar these norms with respect to annulment of a special permit provide that the Prosecutor’s General decisions is final and not subject to appeal, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018;
3) to recognise the second sentence of Section 13(4) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar it provides that following adoption of the final decision on annulment of a special permit a person must be transferred immediately to a job that is not related to official secrets or legal employment (service) relations with him must be terminated,as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
4) to recognise words“and henceforth he or she shall be denied receipt of a special permit” in the second sentence of Section 13 (4) of the law “On Official Secrets”as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
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
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Farmers' PensionsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006””” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old Age Pension (Double Pensions)On 21 October 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-03-01 “On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency AdministratorOn 23 November 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-02-01 “On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On compliance of Section 36320 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Appeal in Insolvency CasesOn Compliance of Section 60, Section 61 and Section 62 of the Law On Taxes and Fees with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Board's Liability for Late Tax PaymentsThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, Assessors of Material InvestmentsOn Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Para 12 in the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On State Pensions", Insofar it Provides that the Old-age Pension to be Granted Instead of Service Pension May Be Granted in the Amount that is Smaller than the Service Pension Received until the Moment of Granting the Old-age Pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old-age Pension (after a Service Pension)On 12 September 2016 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2015-23-01 “On compliance of the second sentence of the third part of Para12 in the Transitional Provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar it provides that the old-age pension to be granted instead of service pension may be granted in the amount that is smaller than the service pension received until the moment of granting the old-age pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
On Compliance of Section 7(3) of Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials with the First Sentence of Article 110 and the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: A Judge as an Assistant to a Disabled Family MemberThe Constitutional Court decided that the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Section 12 (1) of Law On State Pensions, insofar it Provides for Using an Index that is Smaller than "1" in Updating Pension Capital, and Sub-paragraph 65.2 of Transition Provisions of Law On State Pensions with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Updating the Pension CapitalOn Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, AdvocatesOn 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
On Compliance of Section 5.1 of "Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law" with Article 96 of the Republic of Satversme
Case short name: The Debtors of Maintenance PaymentsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 51 of “Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law” as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and invalid as of 1 February 2017.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
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
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
On Compliance of Para 27 in Transitional Provisions of Electronic Mass Media Law with Article 1, the First Sentence in Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Radio "Krievu hītu radio"On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 6 of Section 1, Section 4, Section 10, Section 18(1) of Law on Development and Use of the National DNA Database, as well as Para 2 and Para 13 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 23 August 2005 No. 620 "The Procedure of Providing Information to be Included in the National DNA Database, as well as the Procedure for Collecting Biological Material and Biological Trace", Insofar as These Apply to Persons Suspected, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The DNA DatabaseThe 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.
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.
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
On Compliance of Para 19 and Para 20 of the Bank of Latvia Regulation No. 141 of 15 September 2014 "Requirements Regarding Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism in Buying and Selling Foreign Currency Cash" with Article 1 and Article 64, as well as the First Sentence in Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Bank of Latvia RegulationThe 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.
On Compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law "On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judge as an Assistant to a Disabled ChildThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise the third part of Section 7 of the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Official”with regard to a judge, who needs to provide assistant’s services to his own disabled child, as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the third part of Section 7 of the law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Official”with regard to a judge, who needs to provide assistant’s services to his own disabled child, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
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
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
On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 May 2012 No. 341 "The Procedure for Establishing and Compensating Losses linked to the Provision of Public Transport Services and Setting the Tariff of Public Transport Services" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Transport ServicesThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. The Judgement shall enter into force on the day it is published in the official journal “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
On Compliance of Section 11.6 (1) of Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Disciplinary Cases of JudgesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 116 (1) of the Judicial Disciplinary Liability Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Para 100 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 262 of 16 March 2010 "Regulations Regarding the Production of Electricity Using Renewable Energy Sources and the Procedures for the Determination of the Price" with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Suspension of the Mandatory Electricity ProcurementThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Insolvency Administrators as Officials and also - AdvocatesThe 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.
On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law "Amendments to the Insolvency Law" of 25 September 2014 and the Law "Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, tax Consultants, Members of a Company's BoardOn 22 February 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2015-04-01 “On Compliance of Section 2 of the Law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” of 25 September 2014 and the Law “Amendments to the Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials” of 30 October 2014 with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
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
On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 7 of Law on the National Flag of Latvia and Section 201.43 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The FlagsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 8(1) of Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Interest on DepositThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Para 54.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 "Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 28(1) of Electricity Market Law
Case short name: The Price of Natural Gas in Mandatory ProcurementOn Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2), Section 42 and Words in Section 177(3) "with or without confiscation of property" of the Criminal Law with the Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Confiscation of PropertyThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 279(1) of and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme
Case short name: Appeal in Cases of Administrative ViolationsOn 11 March 2015 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in case No. 2014-33-01 “On Compliance of Section 279(1) and Section 288(1) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Arbitration CourtsOn Compliance of Para 1 of Section 44 (1) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording of 29 November 2012) with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Litigation ExpensesOn Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No. 27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Natural Resources Tax for Small Hydroelectric Power StationsCombined case: 2014-11-0103
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Compliance of Section 363.8 (8) of Civil Procedure Law (in the Wording that was effective until 31 October 2010), insofar it Applies to the Right of the Insolvency Administrator to Appeal against a Court’s Decision, by which the Administrator is Dismissed from the Insolvency Proceedings, with Article 92 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Appeal of the Dismissal of an Insolvency AdministratorOn 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 36(2) of Protection Zone Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Construction in the Coastal Dune Protection ZoneOn 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
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
On Compliance of Section 635(6) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar it Applies to the Reversal of Execution of a Judgement in Matters Regarding Recovery of Remuneration for Work, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Reversal of an Execution of a JudgementOn Compliance of Para 1 and 2 of Section 3, Para 1 of Section 4, and Section 5 of Subsidized Electricity Tax Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Subsidized Electricity TaxConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Subparagraph "f" of Para 1 of Section 3(1), Section 19.1 of Natural Resources Tax Law, the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 January 2014 No.27 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 June 2007 No.404 "Procedures for the Calculation and Payment of Natural Resources Tax and Procedures for the Issuance of Permits for Use of Natural Resources"" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Natural Resources Tax for Small Hydroelectric Power StationsConstitutional 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.
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
On Compliance of Section 495(1) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Arbitration CourtsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 555 of Annex 16 "Tariffs of Health Care Services for Preventive, Diagnostic, Treatment and Rehabilitation Services" to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 17 December 2013 No. 1529 "The Procedure for Organising and Financing Health Care", insofar it does not Envisage a Tariff for Scheduled Birth outside Inpatient Facilities, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Home BirthConstitutional 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.
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
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
On Compliance of Section 16(4) of Law On State Pensions (in the Wording, which was in Force from 7 January 1997 to 30 September 2013, and in the Wording of 17 July 2013), Insofar it Applies to the Formula for Recalculating the Disability Pension if the Disability Group is Changed, if the Recipient of the Disability Pension Prior to the Change of the Disability Group Had Been an Employee and Had Made Social Insurance Contributions, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Disability PensionOn 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
On Compliance of Section 15(1) of Law On Election of the Republic City Council and Municipality Council, Insofar it Does Not Allow Associations of Electors to Submit Lists of Candidates in Municipalities Where the Number of Residents Exceeds 5,000 and in Cities, with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Candidates of Associations of Electors at the Local Government ElectionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 17 of Deposit Guarantee Law with the First Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Deposit Guarantee FundConstitutional 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.
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
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
On Compliance of Para 4.3 and Para 4.4 of the Binding Regulations of 8 July 2008 of the Riga City Council No. 125 "On Taking Care of Riga City Territory and Maintenance of Buildings" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Taking Care of the Territory Adjacent to PropertyOn Compliance of the Binding Regulations of 30 May 2013 by the Council of Pāvilosta District No.3 "On the Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta District for 2012-2024. Rules on the Use of Territory and Construction, and Graphic Part," Insofar it Pertains to Zaļkalna Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Pāvilosta pelēkā kāpa" and to the Part of Akmeņrags Forest Adjacent to Nature Reserve "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of PāvilostaOn Compliance of the Sixth Sentence of Section 56.3(3) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Non-appealability of a Decision by the Prison AdministrationConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 8 of the Law On Residential Tenancy with Section 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Purchase does not Break the LeaseConstitutional 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.
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
On Compliance of the Words "joining in trade unions" of Section 49(1) of Border Guard Law with Article 102 and the Second Sentence of Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Border Guards' Trade UnionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Right to Refuse Initiation of Cassation ProceedingsOn Compliance of Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compensation for Damages Caused by Animals under Special ProtectionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section of 43.2 of Road Traffic Law, Insofar it Affects the Rights of the Vehicle Owner in Administrative Violations Record-keeping, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Penalty for Violating the Parking RulesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 246 (2) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Procedure for Receiving Information prior to the Application of DetentionConstitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case.
On Compliance of the Order of 8 February 2013 by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development No. 67 "On Suspending Binding Regulation of 11 October 2012 by Jūrmala City Council No. 42 "On Approval of the Graphic Part of the Spatial Planning, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Building of Jūrmala City" in the Part" Regarding the Land Unit with Cadastre Registration No. 1300 002 1202 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of State Administration Structure Law, Section 26(1) of Spatial Development Planning Law and Section 49(1) of Law On Local Governments
Case short name: Nature ParksOn Compliance of the Words in Section 21 (2) of Latvian Administrative Violations Code "if the Fine Intended for it Does Not Exceed 30 lats" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Release from Administrative Liability in the Case of a Petty ViolationConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 483 and Section 484 of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The ProtestConstitutional 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.
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
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 23(5) and Section 23.1(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The National Referendum IIIConstitutional 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.”
On Compliance of Section 22(1) of Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative (in the Wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which Enters into Force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The National Referendum IVConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 33(3) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme
Case short name: Compensation of Costs Related to Conducting a MatterConstitutional 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.
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
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 464.1 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Right to Refuse Initiation of Legal ProceedingsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 3 of Law On the Service Pensions of the Officials of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Service Pensions of the Corruption Prevention and Combatting OfficeConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Sub-para 67.1.3 (in the Wording of 28 December 2010) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 October 2006 No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Reimbursement of Expenditure for Acquisition of MedicinesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 138 of Insolvency Law of 1 November 2007 with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Bankruptcy ProceedingsOn Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 733 "Regulations of the Level of the Proficiency in the Official Language and the Procedure of Testing the Level of Language Proficiency for Professional and Craft Duties, for Receiving of Permanent Residence Permit, and Obtaining the Status of Permanent Resident of the European Community, and State Fee for Examination of Skills of the State Language" with Article 91 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Section 6(1) of Official Language Law and Section 31 of Law on the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers
Case short name: The Official Language Proficiency of the Members of Local Governments' CouncilsConstitutional 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.”
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 257 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Removal of Vehicles in Administrative Violations CasesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 567(3) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar it Does not Envisage Covering the Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff From the State Budget Resources, When the Enforcer of the Debt is Exempt From Paying the Costs of Enforcing the Judgement, with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Compliance of Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 August 2011 No. 670 "Regulation on the Amount of Expenditure Necessary for Performing Enforcement Activities and the Procedure of Payment" with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Remuneration for the Duties of Office Performed by a Sworn Bailiff from the State BudgetConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 5 of the Law of 12 March 2009 "Amendments to the Law On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration" with Article 1 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Length of Holidays of Officials with Special Service RanksConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 407.16.3, 434.23 and 572.6 of Aizpute Regional Council Binding Regulations No. 7 of 28 March 2012 "The Graphic Part and the Regulation on the Use of the Territory and Building of Aizpute Regional Spatial Planning for 2012 – 2023" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of Aizpute RegionConstitutional 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.”
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
On Compliance of the Words "if the Taxpayer Agrees to the Additional Amount of Estimated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment [Including a Late Charge That is Calculated for the Period of Tax Payment Delay Starting From the Following Day After the Setting in of the Term of Payment of the Tax up to the Starting Date of a Tax Audit] and, Within 30 Days as From the Day when a Decision of the Tax Administration on Results of the Tax Audit is Taken, Pays the Total Sum of Calculated Tax, Fee or Other State-established Payment into the Budget at the Amount of 15 Per cent of the Basic Tax Debt" in Section 33.3(1) of Law on Taxes and Fees, in the Wording that was Effective Until 9 November 2011, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Reduction of a Fine in Tax MattersConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2 )of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Subject of a ClaimOn Compliance of Section 86 (3) of Law On Judicial Power with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Prohibition for Judges to be Members of Political PartiesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the Third, Fifth, Seventh and the Eighth Part of Section 43.6 of Road Traffic Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Speed CamerasConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 84.1 and 89 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 899 "Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices Intended for Out-patient Medical Treatment" with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Reimbursement of Expenditure for Acquisition of MedicinesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 483 of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar It Establishes the Right of the Chairperson of the Senate Department of Civil Cases to Submit a Protest, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The ProtestConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the Words "up to 31 December 2011" of Para 41 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91. and 109. of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Supplementary Payment to a PensionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Right to Work as a TeacherOn Compliance of the Words "but not Later than within Five Years after Coming into Effect of the Unlawful Administrative Act Issued by the Institution or the Date of having Performed the Illicit Factual Action" of Section 17 of Law On Indemnification of Losses Caused by Public Administration Institutions with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compensation of Losses Caused by State InstitutionsOn Compliance of Sub-para1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions insofar as It Applies to Invalidity Pension Recalculation Formula in Case of Change of the Invalidity Group Provided that the Beneficiary of Invalidity Pension before the Change of the Invalidity Group was an Employee or Made Social Contributions, with Article 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Disability PensionConstitutional 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 short name: Appealing the Dismissal of an Insolvency Administrator
On Compliance of Section 179 (1) of Credit Institutions Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 179 (2) of Credit Institutions Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Insolvency of a Credit InstitutionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 3, Para 5 and Para 7 of Section 128 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Subject of a ClaimConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 141 (1), Insofar as It Fails to Provide the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint for a Decision Rejecting an Application on Securing of a Claim and a Decision Rejecting an Application on Revocation of the Security of a Claim, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Appeal in the Case of Securing a ClaimConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of 30 March 2012 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 311 "Provisions Regarding Number of Members of the Board of State or Local Government Capital Companies and Remuneration of a Member of the Council or the Board, a Representative of a Local Government Shareholder and the Chief Employee" with Section 96 (2) of Law On State and Local Government Capital Shares and Companies and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Setting the Remuneration in State Capital CompaniesOn Compliance of Section 11 (1) and Section 25 (1) of Law On National Referendum and Legislative Initiatives with Article 1, Article 77 and Article 78 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The National Referendum IIConstitutional Court held to terminate judicial proceedings in the Case.
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.
On Compliance of Para 12 of Transitional Provisions of Waste Management Law, insofar as it Applies to Contracts Entered into not Applying the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement or in Non-Compliance with the Regulatory Enactments Regarding Public Procurement, with Article 1 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Waste ManagementConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 20 (1) of Law On State Social Benefits with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Full State SupportConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 8 (2) of Law on Compensation for Losses Caused by State Administration Institutions with the third sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Personal LossesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 6 (2) of Law on the Rights of Landowners to Compensation for Restrictions on Economic Activities in Specially Protected Nature Territories and Microreserves with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Compensation for Microreserve, the Black StorksConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 16.2 (4) and Section 19 (5) of Law On Budget and Financial Management with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Budget of Independent InstitutionsOn Compliance of Para 3 and Para 4 of 10 May 2005 Cabinet of Minister Regulation No. 312 "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Blank Tape Levy and the Levy of Equipment Used for Reproduction and the Procedures for the Collection, Repayment, Distribution and Payment Thereof" with Article 64, Article 105 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Data CarriersConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Sub-Para "c" of Para 19 of Section 9(1) of Law On Personal Income Tax (in the Wording of the Law of 22 November 2001) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Personal Income Tax (Sale of Property)On Compliance of Section 62 (1) of Insolvency Law and Section 363.2 (2) of Civil Procedure Law, Insofar as It Fails to Establish the Right of the Court to Release Persons from Deposit Payment, with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Insolvency DepositConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Sub-para 3.1 5 and Para 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" and Para 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 "Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors" with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The ResidentsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the Words "and the Annual Fee for the Land Lease shall not Exceed 5% from the Cadastral Value of the Land" of the Note to Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Land Reform in CitiesOn Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On the Social Protection of the Participants of the Chernobyl Nuclear Clean-up and Persons who Suffered as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Chernobyl PensionOn Compliance of Sub-programme 23.00.00 of Law On the State Budget 2011 with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The State Road FundConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 3 (7), Section 4 (2) and Section 16 (1), (2) and (3), Insofar as They Apply to Judges (Land Registry Judges) and Public Prosecutors, Section 4 (9), Section 6.1, Section 6.2, the First Sentence of Section 14 (1), Section 15 (7), of Law On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Self-government Authorities and Section 8.4 of Transitional Provisions Thereof, as well as Compliance of Section 89.11 Para 9.1 of Law On Judicial Power, Para 4 and Para 10 of Law "Amendments to the Law On Judicial Power", and Section 2 and Section 5 (Regarding Deleting Section 55 (3)), Section 6 (Regarding Deleting Section 57.1 (4), Section 57.2 and Section 57.5) of 16 December 2010 Law "Amendments to the Office of the Prosecutor Law)" with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judges' Salaries IIIOn Compliance of Section 9 (4) of Road Traffic Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Automobile Registered in a Foreign StateConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) of Law on State Funded Pensions with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Funded PensionsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 26 August 2010 by the Council of Pāvilosta County No. 22 "Rules on Using of Construction in the Property at 2E Dzirnavu Street, Pāvilosta, Pāvilosta County" with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Binding Regulation of Pāvilosta Regional CouncilOn 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
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section39(1) of Public Procurement Law with Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Public ProcurementConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 13 of Insolvency Law, Insofar It Applies to Persons Who have Started Their Activities in the Office of the Administrator of Insolvency Proceedings Pursuant to the Requirement of Section 13 of Law On Insolvency of Enterprises and Capital Companies Regarding Higher Education in the Field of Economics, Management or Finance, and of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Insolvency Law with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Education of Insolvency AdministratorsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2.1) of Law On State Social Insurance with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Actual Social Insurance ContributionsConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 (1) of Law On Land Reform in Rural Areas of the Republic of Latvia with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Land of AbreneConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 1068 (1) of Civil Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Joint OwnershipConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in Republican Cities of Latvia, Insofar It Applies to Land Beneath Apartment Buildings, and of Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Land Reform and Forced LeaseOn Compliance of the Binding Regulation of 21 April 2010 by the Council of Salacgrīva County No. DL-1/2010 "Spatial Planning for the Immoveable Property "Zivtiņas", Cadastre Reg. No. 66600030167, Salacgrīva County, Liepupe Paris, Tūja" with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Placing the Base Station of a Telecommunications Operator and the Spatial PlanOn 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
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 78 (3) of Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Rights of Third Persons to Participate in Divorce CasesConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 59.5 of Credit Institution Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Increasing the State's Participation in a Credit InstitutionConstitutional 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.
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.
On Compliance of Para 6 and Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Protection of Employees in Case of Insolvency of Employer with Article 1 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Disbursements from the Employee Claims Guarantee FundConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 51 (13) Indent 1 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Convicted Persons' Right to Receive Remuneration for WorkConstitution 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.
On Compliance of Section 6(1) of The Saeima Election Law, Insofar It Applies to a Judge, Who Has been Nominated as a Candidate, with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judge's Right to Stand for the Saeima ElectionOn 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Compliance of Section 59.2, Section 59.3, Section 59.4, Section 117 (4) Para 3, Section 173 (4) and Section 185 (1) Prim of the Credit Institutions Law with Article 1, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Transition of a Credit InstitutionConstitutional 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.
On Compliance of Section 16.1 (3) of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Personal Income Tax (Private Pension Funds)Constitutional Court held that the Section 16.1 (3) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Selling of Pledged Immovable PropertyOn Compliance of Para 1.1 of Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 June 2009 No. 511 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 24 August 2004 No. 740 "Regulation on Grants""with Article 91 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Grants by Institutions of EducationOn Compliance of the Part in the Binding Regulation of 24 September 2009 No. 9 by the Council of Pāvilosta County "On Spatial Planning of Pāvilosta County", Consisting of the Graphic Part "Planned (Permitted) Use of Territory" in the Binding Regulation of 27December 2007 by the Council of Saka Parish No. 12 "Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Saka Paris, Saka County", Insofar it Applies to Parts of Zaļkalna Forest to the Parts of Akmeņraga Forest Adjacent to the Nature Protection Zone "Ziemupe", with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of PāvilostaOn Compliance of Section 7 (5) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well a compliance of the First Sentence of Section 35 (1) of Investigatory Operations Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Legality of Investigatory OperationsConstitutional 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.
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
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
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 short name: The Convicted Persons' Obligation to Keep their Sleeping-berths in OrderOn 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.
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
Case short name: The Keeping of Religious Objects at Institutions of Deprivation of LibertyConstitutional 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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Case short name: The Renewal of a Driving LicenceConstitutional 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.
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.
On Compliance of Section 358 and Section 364 of Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The IncapacityConstitutional 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.
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
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
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-16-01
On Compliance of Section 286.14 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-01-01
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
Combined case: 2010-16-01
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
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
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.
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
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
On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-08-01
On Compliance of 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
Case short name: The Personal Income Tax (Deposits)Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 6 of the Law “Amendments to the Law on Personal Income Tax” of 1 December 2009 (Provision Envisaging Crossing out of Section 9 (1) (3) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax”) does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Section 8 (3) (13) and Section 16.1 (9) of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” does comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Combined case: 2009-111-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the first and the third part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-16-01
On Compliance of Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia, Insofar it Applies to Land under Residential Apartment Houses and Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Para 7 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” insofar as it applies to land under residential apartment houses and Para 40 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses” fails to comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance Section 4 (2) of Law On State Funded Pensions and Para 2, Sub-para 4 and Sub-para 5 of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions thereof with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Section 4 (2) of the Law on State Funded Pensions and Para 2 (3), (4) and (5) of Transitional Provisions thereof taken as a single regulatory framework does
comply with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions (in the Part Pertaining to Making Equivalent Periods of Work and the Equivalent Periods Thereof of Non-Citizens to Lengths of Period of Insurance) with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Old Age Pension (Non-citizens)Constitutional Court held that the Para 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” (the part regulating making equivalent of the accrued work and the rquivalent period thereof for non-citizens of Latvia to length of period of insurance) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereof.
On Compliance of the Words "Public Mortgage" in Para 1 of Section 400(1) of Civil Procedure Law and of the First and the Third Part of Section 405 with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-16-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law with Article 1, Article 109 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The MaintenanceConstitutional Court held that the Para 4 of Transitional Provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law does comply with Article 1, Article 109, and Article 110 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Compliance of Section 14(7) of This Law, as Well as of Section 20(9) of Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (in the Wording of the Law That Was Effective from 25 November 2004 to 16 June 2009) and Section 6(1) of Law "Amendments to Law On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases" with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 20 (9) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” (wording effective up to 1 July 2009) does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Section 20 (9) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. Section 14 (7) of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
4. Section 6 (1) of the 16 June 2009 Law “Amendments to the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” does comply with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 400(1) and the First and the Third Part of Section 405 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 141(1) of Civil Procedure Law, insofar as It Establishes the Right to Submit an Ancillary Complaint Regarding a Decision Satisfying an Application on Securing of a Claim, with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Appeal in the Case of Securing of a ClaimConstitutional Court held that taking into account the judgment of 30 March 2010 by the Constitutional Court in the case No. 2009-85-01, Section 141 Para 1 of the Civil Procedure Law insofar as it does not grant the right to submit an ancillary complaint in regard to a decision satisfying an application for the securing of a claim as null and void, in relation to the applicant “Yelverton Investment B.V.” as from the date of adoption thereof.
On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2010-08-01
On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 30 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 April 2008 "Regulations on Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 18(4) of Administrative Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 20 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Long-Service Pensions for Ministry of the Interior System Employees with Special Service Ranks with Article 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "if These Transactions Have Not Been Declared in Accordance with the Procedure Established by the First Part of this Section, - in the Amount of 15 Per Cent of the Sum Total of These Transactions, Unless this Section provides Otherwise" of Section 30(2) of Law on Taxes and Fees (in the Wording of 4 December 1997) with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words in Section 396(1) of Civil Procedure Law "or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market", the Words in Section 396(2) "but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required", the Words in Section 397(1) "without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof", and the words in Para 1 of Section 397(2)"the immovable property is owned by the submitter of the application or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market" with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Voluntary Judicial Sale of an Immoveable PropertyConstitutional Court held:
1) the words “the document itself or” of Section 396 (2) of the Civil procedure Law do not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia; therefore they shall be null and void as from 10 December 2010;
2) the words “or the pledgee who has the right to sell the pledge on the open market” of Section 396 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, the words “but if the application has been submitted by a pledgee – also a true copy of the pledge agreement, evidence regarding warning of the debtor, unless it does not follow from the law that such warning is required” of Section 396 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law, the words “without notifying the applicant and the debtor thereof” of Section 397 of the Civil Procedure Law, and words “or by a debtor of a pledgee and the pledgee has the right to sell the immovable property on the open market” of Section 397 (2) (1) of the Civil Procedure Law do comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the republic of Latvia.
"On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia "
Combined case: 2009-110-01
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law on Budget and Financial Management, Section 44 (2) of Law on the State Audit Office and Section 19 (2) of Ombudsman Law with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Budget of Independent InstitutionsConstitutional 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.
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
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
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
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
Case short name: The Term of Reimbursing Overpaid TaxesConstitutional 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.
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
Case short name: The Appeal in Cases of Administrative ViolationsConstitutional 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.
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
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2009-110-01
On Compliance of Section 116(1) of Law On the Sentence Execution Code with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 5(1) of Law On Payment of State Allowances during the Time Period from 2009 to 2012 with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2009-110-01
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of Law On 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.
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
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
Case short name: The Judges' Salaries IIConstitutional 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 short name: The Double CitizenshipOn 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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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”.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Case short name: The Decreasing of PensionsConstitutional 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Compliance of Section 30(1) of Electricity Market Law with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 10 (3) of Law On Religious Organizations with Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 9 of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
On Compliance of the Words "the Reimbursement of Expenditures for the Acquisition of Medicinal Products and Medicinal Devices" of the Second Sentence of Para 92, the Words "Except for the Case Referred to in Sub-Paragraph 100.1" of Para 94, the Words "not More than LVL 10 000 for One Patient within a Time Period of 12 Months" of Para 100 and the Second Sentence of Para 100.1 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations 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 93 and Article 110 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Para 7 and 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 (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judges' Salaries IConstitutional Court held:
1. To declare the second sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power”, in the wording of the law from 14 November, 2008, 16 June, 2009 and 1 December, 2009 incompatible with Article 83 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid starting with 1 January, 2011.
2. To declare Paragraph 17 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial power”, in the wording of the law from 14 November, 2008, 16 June, 2009 and 1 December, 2009 incompatible with Article 83 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid starting with 1 January, 2011.
On Compliance of the Second Part of Section 49 of Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Second Part of Section 49 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code does not comply with Article 96 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Graphic Part of the Riga City Council Binding Regulations of 20 December 2005 No. 34 "Provisions on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Riga" that Provides for Inclusion of the Land Parcel of Kanāla Street n/n (Cadastre No. 01001281003) into the Greenery and Nature Territory with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Para 6 of Section 3 of Spatial Planning Law
On Compliance of the Words "State Pensions Shall Not Be Revised in 2009" of Section 2 of Law "On Amendments to Law On State Pensions" of 12 March 2009 with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Non-revision of PensionsConstitutional Court held that the words “State pensions shall not be examined in 2009” of Section 2 of 12 March 2009 Law “Amendments to the Law “On State Pensions” comply with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 74 (1) of Sentence Execution Code of Latvia and Para 88 of the 30 May 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 432 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 96 and Article 104 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held:
1. Section 74 (1) of the Latvian Penalty Execution code and Section 88 of 30 May 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 423 “Regulations Regarding Internal Rules of Order of Places of Deprivation of Liberty” (the wording of 12 May 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 413) comply with Article 96 and Article 104 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Section 88 of 30 May 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 423 “Regulations Regarding Internal Rules of Order of Places of Deprivation of Liberty” (the wording of 3 June 2006) with Article 104 of the Satversme shall be terminated.
On Compliance of the Law "On Forfeit of Property for Public Needs, for the Third Stage of Construction of the Southern Bridge" with Article 105 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "Two" and "per Month" of Para 4 of Section 50.4(8) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the words "two" and "per month" of Item 4 of Part 8 of Section 50.4 of the Penalty Execution Code of Latvia complies with Article 96 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words "Dzērbenes Parish" and "Kaives Parish, Taurenes Parish" of Para 103 of Appendix 2 "Amalgamated Municipalities and Entities of Territorial Division Thereof" of Law On Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government of 15 October 1985
On Compliance of the Amount of Toilet Soap Provided for in Appendix 3 of the 19 December 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 1022 ""Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs" with Article 91 and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "One Hour Long" and "in the Presence of a Representative of an Investigation Prison Administration" of Para 6 of Section 13 of Law On the Procedures for Holding under Arrest with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 1 of Law On Confiscation of Immovable Property for the Needs of the Border Checkpoint Terehova with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Expropriation of Immoveable Property. (The Border Checkpoint Terehova)Constitutional Court held that the Item 1 of Section 1 of the Law “On Expropriation of Immovable Property for the Needs of the Border Checkpoint Terehova” does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be void as from the moment of adopting thereof.
On Compliance of Section 74 (2) of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the second part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code does not comply with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be void as from May 2010.
On Compliance of the Words “Not Later Than Within 60 Days” of Section 32(3) of Law On the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Freezing of Financial AssetsConstitutional Court held that the words “not later than within 60 days” of the third part of Section 32 of the Law “On Prevention of Laundering of the Proceeds from Crime and Financing of Terrorism” does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be declared void as from 1 January 2010.
On Compliance of the Words “Dekšāres Parish” of Para 95 of Chapter II of the Appendix of 4 September 2007 Cabinet Regulations No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 5 of the Charter of Local Self-Government of 15 October 1985 and the First and the Fourth Part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
On Compliance of 21 January 1997 Cabinet Regulations No. 46 “Regulations Regarding Government Agreements” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First, Sixth and Tenth Part of Section 10 of the State Administration Structure Law
On Compliance of the Words “Dekšāres Parish” of Para 95 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the 4 September 2007 Cabinet Regulations No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial division of Local Governments” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "Within Two Years Calculated from the Day when They Have Found out about the Circumstances that Preclude Paternity" of Section 156(2) of the Civil Law with Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of the European Convention of the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock
Constitutional Court held that the words “within two years calculated from the day when they have found out about the circumstances that preclude paternity” of the second part of Section 156 of the Civil Law comply with Article 92 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words "One Hour Long" and "in the Presence of a Representative of an Investigation Prison Administration" of Para 6 of Section 13 of Law On the Procedures for Holding under Arrest with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the words “one hour long” of Item 6 of the first part of Section 13 of the Law "On Procedures for Keeping in Custody” insofar as they provide for the maximum time of short visits and the words “at presence of a representative of an investigation prison administration” of Item 6 of the first part of Section 13 of the same Law insofar as they do not provide for individual assessment of a particular case, do not comply with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be invalid as from 1 December 2009.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 1 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 2 of Law On National Referendums and Legislative Initiative "with Article 6, Article 8 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 of the Law "On National Referendums and Legislative Initiative" with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the second part of Section 22 of the Law "On National Referendums and Initiation of Legislation” complies with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Order No 2-02/299 of 10 June 2008 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Annulment of the Binding Regulations No. 8 of the Jūrmala City Council of 28 April 2004 "Amendments to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City" and Annulment of the Part of Binding Regulations No. 19 of 12 July 2007 "On Confirmation of the Amendments, Graphical Part, Land Use and Construction Regulations to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City"" with Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia, the First, Third and Fifth Part of Section 10 of State Administration Structure Law and the Second Part of Section 7.1 of Spatial Planning Law
On Compliance of the Binding Regulations No. 8 of the Jūrmala City Council of 28 April 2004 "Amendments to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City" and the Binding Regulations No. 19 of 12 July 2007 "On Confirmation of the Amendments, Graphical Part insofar as It Concerns the Territory in Dzintari between the Meža Boulevard, Edingurgas Boulevard, Indras Street and Krišjāņa Barona Street , Land Use and Building Regulations to the Development Plan (General Plan) of the Jūrmala City"" with Article 1 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of the Binding Regulations No. 37 of the Jūrmala City Council of 30 August 2007 “On Confirmation of the Graphical part, Land Use and Building Regulations of the Detailed Plan of the Territory in Dzintari between the Meža Boulevard, Edingurgas Boulevard, Indras Street and Krišjāņa Barona Street” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 100.1 of 31 October 2006 Cabinet Regulations 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 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court Law held that the Section 100 and Section 100.1 of the 31 October 2006 Cabinet Regulations No. 899 “Procedures for the Reimbursement of Expenses toward the Purchase of Medical Products and Medical Devices for the Out-Patient Care” comply with Article 91 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words “Apartment Houses” of Section 12(2) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia and Para 7 of the Transitional Provisions Thereof, and the First Sentence of Section 54(2) of Law On Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment House”, and Para 40 of the Transitional Provisions Thereof with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the words “apartment eesidential houses” of the second part of Section 12 of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” and Para 7 of the Transitional Provisions thereof insofar as the restrictions of the lease payment apply to the land under residential aparment houses, and the first sentence of the second part of Section 54 of the Law “On Privatization of State and Local Government Residential Houses”, and Para 40 of the Transitional Provisions thereof do not comply with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and are invalid as from 1 November 2009.
On Compliance of the Law "On Lisbon Agreement Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community" with Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Law “On the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty of European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community” has been adopted in conformity with the procedures established in the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and consequently complies with the first part of Article 101 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Word “Lease"” Used in Section 12(3) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia and the First and Second Part of Section 54 of Law On Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Buildings with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Word “Norm” Used in the Third Part of Section 12 of the Law “On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” and the First and Second Part of Section 54 of the Law “On Apartment House Privatization” complies with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words "Skrīveri Parish" of Para 2, the Words "Bēne Parish" of Para 8, the Words "Baltinava Parish" of Para 12, the Words "Code Parish", "Gailīši Parish", "Īslīce Parish", "Mežotne Parish" and "Vecsaule Parish" of Para 13, the Words "Kauguri Parish" of Para 14, the Words "Glūda Parish" and "Līvbērze Parish" of Para 35, the Words "Priekuļi Parish" of Para 65, the Words "Malta Parish" of Para 66, the Words "Allaži Parish" of Para 77, the Words "Ģibuļi Parish", "Lībagi Parish" and "Strazde Parish" of Para 82, the Words "Pūre Parish" of Para 84, the Words "Kocēni Parish" of Para 87 and the Words "Tārgale Parish" of Para 92 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On the Words "Lapmežciems Parish" of Para 3.15 and Para 25 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Brīvzemnieki Parish" of Para 5 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Amata Parish" and "Drabeši Parish" of Paea 18 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Sigulda City", "Sigulda Parish" and "More Parish" of Paea 77 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Baloži Town" of Para 44 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Inčukalns Parish" of Para 3.16 and Para 77 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
On Compliance of the Words "Jersika Parish" of Para 48 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2008-25-03
Of the Words “Lapmežciema Parish” in Para 3.15, the Words "Inčukalna Parish of Para 3.16, of the Words "Valgunde County" of Para 3.17, the Words of Para 2 in Annexx II "Skrīveri County", the Words "Brīvzemnieki Parish" of Para 5, the Words "Bēne Parish" of Para 8, the Words “Baltinava Parish” of Para 12, the Words “Code Parish"”, “Gailīši Parish”, “Īslīce Parish”, “Mežotne Parish” and “Vecsaule Parish” of Para 13, the Words “Kauguri Parish” of Para 14, the Words “Amata Parish” and“Drabeši Parish” of Para 18, the Words “Lapmežciems Parish” of Para 25, the Words “Valgunde County”, “Glūda Parish” and “Līvbērze Parish” of Para 35, the Words “Baloži Town” of Para 44 , the Words “Jersika Parish” of Para 48, the Words “Priekuļi Parish” of Para 65, the Words “Malta Parish” of Para 66, the words “Allaži Parish”, “Inčukalns Parish” “Sigulda Town”, “Sigulda Parish” and “More Parish” of Para 77, the Words “Ģibuļi Parish”, “Lībagu Parish” and “Strazdes Parish of Para 82”, the Words“Pūre Parish” of Para 84, the Words“Kocēni Parish" of Para 87, the Words “Tārgale Parish of Para 92 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 "Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments" with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Part of the Riga Spatial Plan for 2006 – 2018, which Provides that the Territory Between A. Deglava Street, Lubāna Street, the Constructed Extension of A. Deglava Street up to Kaive Street and the Planned Rembate Street is the Land of Mixed Type Construction, with Article 1 and 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Binding Regulations of the Jūrmala City Council of December 1, 2004 No. 22 "On Confirmation of the Binding Part of the Draft Detail Plan "Bulduri 1001"" with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “Vaidava Parish” of Para 87 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Skrīveri Parish” of Para 2, the Words “Bēne Parish” of Para 8, the Words “Baltinava Parish” of Para 12, the Words “Code Parish”, “Gailīši Parish”, “Īslīce Parish”, “Mežotne Parish” and “Vecsaule Parish” of Para 13, the Words “Kauguri Parish” of Para 14, the Words “Glūda Parish” and “Līvbērze Parish” of Para 35, the Words “Priekuļi Parish” of Para 65, the Words “Malta Parish” of Para 66, the Words “Allaži Parish” of Para 77, the Words “Ģibuļi Parish”, “Lībagi Parish” and “Strazde Parish” of Para 82, the Words “Pūre Parish” of Para 84, the Words “Kocēni Parish” of Para 87 and the Words “Ance Parish” and “Tārgale Parish” of Para 92 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Inčukalns Parish” of Para 3.16 and Para 77 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Jersika Parish” of Para 48 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Baloži Town” of Para 44 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Brīvzemnieki Parish” of Para 5 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Amata Parish” and “Drabeši Parish” of Para 18 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On the Words “Lapmežciems Parish” of Para 3.15 and Para 25 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Valgunde Parish” of Para 3.17 and Para 35 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of the Words “Sigulda City”, “Sigulda Parish” and “More Parish” of Para 77 of Chapter II of the Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First and the Fourth part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
Combined case: 2008-08-0306
On Compliance of Section 142(2) and Section 284(2) of Commercial Law with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court helds that the second part of Section 284 of the Commercial Law in the wording that was valid before 21 January 2009 insofar as it prohibited establishing, in articles of association of a company, a larger number of votes necessary for adoption of important decisions regarding the stock company "Latvijas Gāze" does not comply with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia from the moment of adoption of this norm.
On Compliance of Para 2 Section 1231 of Civil Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that Item 2 of Section 1231 of the Civil Law complies with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 49 (4) of Criminal Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 230.1(1) of Criminal Law with the First Sentence of the First Part of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 64 and 65 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the first part of Section 230.1 of the Criminal Law complies with Article 64, Article 65 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the first sentence of the first part of Article 7 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
On Compliance of Paea 3.15, Para 3.16 and Para 3.17, as well as the Words in Annex II Para 2 "Skrīveri Parish", the Words "Brīvzemnieki Parish" in Para 5, the Words, "Bēne Parish" of Para 8, the Words "Baltinava Parish" of Para 12, the Words "Code Parish" "Gailīši Parish", "Īslīce Parish", "Mežotne Parish" and "Vecsaule Parish" of Para 13", the Words "Kauguri Parish" of Para 14, the Words "Amata Parish" and "Drabeši Parish" of Para 18, the Words "Lapmežciema Parish" of Para 25, the Words "Glūdas Parish", "Līvbērze Parish" and "Valgunde Parish" of Para 35", the Words "Alsunga Parish" of Para 42, the Words "Baložo Town" of Para 44, the Words "Jersika Parish" of Para 48, the Words "Priekuļi Parish" and "Rauna Parish" of Para 65, the Words "Maltas Parish of Para 66", 77.punkta the Words "Allaži Parish", "Inčukalns Parish", "More Parish", "Sigulda Parish" and "Sigulda Town" of Para 77, the Words "Ģibuļi Parish", "Lībagi Parish" and "Strazde Parish" of Para 82, the Words "Pūre Parish" of Para 84, the Words "Kocēni Parish" and "Vaidava Parish" of Para 87, and the Words "Ances Parish" and "Tārgale Parish" of Para 92 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations of September 4, 2007 No. 596 “Regulations Regarding Administrative Territorial Division of Local Governments” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985 and the First, the Third and the Fourth Part of Section 6.1 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform
On Compliance of the First and the Fourth Part of Section 458 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the first part of Section 458 of the Civil Procedure Law in conjunction with the fourth part thereof, which took effect on 25 June 2008 (insofar as these norms provided that a court or a judge shall decide on full or partial exemption of a person from security fee for a cassation complaint being submitted) does not complies with article 92 of the Satversme and invalid in relation to the Applicant as from 24 October 2007.
On Compliance of the Words and the Number “and Section 31” of Section 283 and Section 317 of Latvian Administrative Violations Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of the Fifth Part of Para 3.2.8 and the First Part of Sub-para 3.10.6 of the Building Regulations of the Binding Regulations No. 6 “Spatial Planning of Laža Parish of Liepāja Region, 2007 – 2019” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 441(2) of Civil Procedure Law (Insofar it Concerns Decisions Regarding Imposition of a Fine in the Form of Procedural Sanction) with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Constitutional Court helds that the second part of Section 441 of the Civil Procedure Law (insofar as it concerns decisions regarding imposition of a fine as procedural sanction) complies with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation No. 67 of December 19, 2006 of the Riga City Council "Regulations of Use and Building of the Territory in Maskava Street 264 (Cadastre No. 01000780413) and Maskava Street without Number" with Para 1 of Section 3 of the Spatial Planning Law, Para 4 of Section 37(1) of Protection Zone Law and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the First and the third Sentence of the First Part and the First Sentence of the Sixth Part of Section 52 of the Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the first and the third sentence of the first part of Section 52 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code regarding rest days and the first sentence of the sixth part of Section 52 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code do not comply with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as from May 1, 2009.
On Compliance of the Financial Assistance Quotas for Production of Biofuel 7813953 Litres – for the Farmers Co-operative “Latraps” (LV58503007191) and 3255814 Litres for the Joint-Stock Company “Baltic Holding Company” (LV40003558603) Established in Para 4 of the Regulation No. 312 of May 8, 2007 by the Cabinet of Ministers “Amendments to the Regulation No. 712 of September 13, 2005 by the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Procedure for Granting State Assistance for Production of the Necessary Minimum Amount of Biofuel and the Procedure for Setting the Financial Assistance Quotas According to the Types of Biofuel”” with the First Part of Section 8 of the Biofuel Law and Item 1 of the Fourth Part of Section 8 of the Law “On Excise Duties
Constitutional Court held:
1. Appendix II of the Regulation No. 712 of September 13, 2005 by the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Procedure for Granting State Assistance for Production of the Necessary Minimum Amount of Biofuel and the Procedure for Setting the Financial Assistance Quotas According to the Types of Biofuel” does not comply with the first part of Section 8 of the Biofuel Law.
2. Appendix III of the Regulation No. 280 of April 15, 2008 by the Cabinet of Ministers “Regulations Regarding Financial Assistance Quotas for Biofuel” does not comply with the first part of Article 8 of the Biofuel Law and is invalid as from November 1, 2008.
On Compliance of Section 434 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 1, 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Section 464 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2007-22-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of Criminal Procedure Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Length of Pre-trial Criminal ProceedingsConstitutional Court helds that Para 3 of the Transitional Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 50 (2) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Postal ExpenditureConstitutional Court helds that the second sentence of the second part of Section 50 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code, insofar as it does not provide to pay from the State budget for posting of submissions regarding the disputing of an administrative act or factual activities and requests for legal assistance for those prisoners who have no financial resources, does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and is invalid as from November 1, 2008.
On Compliance of the Words "not More than Once per Three Years" of Section 33.1 (1) of Law On Taxes and Fees (Wording of the Law of April 13, 2000) with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Reducing the Tax FineConstitutional Court held:
1. In relation to the cases undergoing proceedings, the words “not more often than once per three years” of the first part of Section 33.1 of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” (wording of April 13, 2000) do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the date of passing thereof.
2. In relation to the cases undergoing proceedings, the words “not more often than once a year” of the first part of Section 33.1 of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” (wording of March 31, 2004) do not comply with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid form the date of passing thereof.
On Compliance of Sections 434 and 464 of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 1, 82, 86 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Entering into Force of an Appellate Judgement; Refusal to Initiate Cassation Legal ProceedingsConstitutional Court held:
1. Article 434 of the Civil Procedure Law does not comply with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and shall be ineffective from July 1, 2008.
2. Legal proceedings regarding compliance of the third part of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with Article 1, Article 82, Article 86 and Article 92 of the Satversme shall be terminated.
On Compliance of the Second Part of Section 7 of Law On Public Transport Services with Articles 2, 3 and the First, Third and Fourth Part of Article 4 of the European Charter of Local Self-Governments of October 15, 1985
Constitutional Court held that proceedings in the case shall be terminated.
On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish” with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2007-17-05
On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government "On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council "Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property "Saulrīti", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish" with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2007-17-05
On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government "On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council "Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property "Ausmas", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property "Undīnes", Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish" with Section 10(1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2007-17-05
On Compliance of the Decree No. 2-02/144 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government “On Suspending the Binding Regulation No. 6 of June 13, 2003 of the Kolka Parish Council”, the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish”, the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Saulrīti”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” and the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Ausmas”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property “Undīnes”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” with Section 10 (1) of State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court held that the Decree No. 2-02/144 of June 6, 2007 by the Minister of Regional Development and Local Government “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 6 of June 13, 2003 of the Kolka Parish Council”, the Decree No. 2-02/145 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Jūrassili”, Cadastre No. 8862 001 0061, of the Sīkrags Village of the Kolka Parish”, the Decree No. 2-02/146 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Saulrīti”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0050, of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” and the Decree No. 2-02/147 of June 6, 2007 “On Arresting of the Binding Regulation No. 11 of October 23, 2006 of the Kolka Parish Council “Detailed Plan No. 01/08/05 for the Territory of the Property “Ausmas”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0027, and the Property “Undīnes”, Cadastre No. 8862 002 0204 of the Mazirbe Village of the Kolka Parish” comply with the First Part of Section 10 of the State Administration Structure Law and Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Part of the Amendments to Ikšķile Region Spatial Plan for 2006 – 2010 Providing for Building of Dwelling Houses in the Territory of Real Estate “Pēterkalni” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Part 2 of Section 7.1 of Law on State Social Allowances with Articles 91 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Allowance for Caring for a Disabled ChildConstitutional Court held that the second part of Section 7.1 of the Law on Allowances does not comply with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, as to Jolanta Kalniņa-Levina, as well as to other persons who have started protection of the violated rights by means of general means of rights protection, is invalid from January 1, 2006.
On Compliance of the Law “On the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on the State Border of Latvia and Russia” with Article 3 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Words “Observing the Principle of Inviolability of Borders Accepted by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe” of the Article 1 of the Law “On the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on State Border of Latvia and Russia” with the Preamble and Para 9 of the Declaration of 4 May 1990 of The Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR “On Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia”
Combined case: 2007-10-0102
On Compliance of the Words "on an Ongoing Basis" of the Provision Included in Para 6 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Articles 91 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Allowance for Child CareConstitutional Court held that the words “on an ongoing basis” of Para 6 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 644 of August 8, 2006 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement” do not comply with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and are invalid as of March 1, 2006.
On Compliance of the Part of Ādaži Spatial Plan Providing for Construction in the Flooding Area of Lielais Baltezers with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of ĀdažiConstitutional Court held:
1. The part of the Ādaži Parish Spatial Plan, which provides for construction in the territory of the Big Baltezers Lake with the probability of flooding at least once a hundred years, does not comply with Article 115 of the Satversme and invalid as of March 30, 2006.
2. The words of Item 5 of the binding part 4.30.1 a) (1) of the Ādaži Parish Spatial Plan “except for cases when a detailed plan, by justifying it appropriately and observing the requirements established in the Protection Zone Law, establishes the building setback line closer to the water body” do not comply with the fifth part of Section 6 of the Spatial Planning Law and invalid as of March 30, 2006.
On Compliance of the Part of Riga Spatial Plan 2006 – 2018 Related to the Territory of the Freeport of Riga with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of Riga, the Free Port of RigaConstitutional court:
1. Held that the part of the Riga City Land Use Plan 2006 – 2018 related to the territory of the Freeport of Riga violates Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and is invalid as from the date of coming into force, i.e. 4 January 2006.
2. Held that the Riga City Development Plan 1995 – 2005 and the respective Riga City building regulations are valid within the boundaries of the Freeport of Riga established by the Regulation No. 690 of 22 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers “Regulations on Delimiting the Boundaries of the Freeport of Riga”.
On Compliance of the Law “On Authorisation to the Cabinet of Ministers to Sign the Draft Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on the State Border between Latvia and Russia Initialled on August 7, 1997” and the Words “Observing the Principle of Inviolability of Borders Adopted by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe” of Article 1 of the Law “On the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on the State Border of Latvia and Russia” with the Preamble and Para 9 of the Declaration of May 4, 1990 of The Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR “On Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia” and Compliance of the Treaty of March 27, 2007 of the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation of the State Border of Latvia and Russia with Article 3 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Border TreatyConstitutional Court held:
1. The Law “On Authorization to the Cabinet of Ministers to Sign the Draft Border Treaty between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on the State Border of Latvia and Russia Initialled on August 7, 1997” complies with the Preamble and Article 9 of the Declaration of May 4, 1990 by the Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR “On the Renewal of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia”.
2. The Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on the State Border of Latvia and Russia complies with Article 3 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. The Law “On the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on the State Border of Latvia and Russia” complies with Article 3 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
4. The words “observing the principle of inviolability of borders established by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe” included in Article 1 of the Law “On the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty on the State Border of Latvia and Russia” do not comply with the first part of Article 68 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publishing of the judgment.
On Compliance of the Words “Without Restriction on the Term of Office” of Section 7(4) of Constitutional Court Law with Articles 83, 91 and Part 1 of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2007-03-01
On Compliance of the Second, the Third and the Fourth Sentence of Para 7 of the Transitional Provisions of Law On Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Образование работников БПБК (KNAB)Constitutional Court held the second, third and fourth sentence of Para 7 of the Transitional Provision of the Law on Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau complies with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Para 2 Part 1 of Section 3 and Section 9(1) of Citizenship Law with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Regulation No. 32 of January 8, 2007 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Amendments to National Security Law" with Articles 1 and 81 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 68 of Medical Treatment Law with Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Part 4 of Article 5 of The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Part 4 of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
On Compliance of the Words and Figures “(but not Sooner than from the Day a Person has Reached 15 Years of Age, Except the Case Specified in Paragraph 40 of These Regulations)” Included in Para 2 of the Regulation No. 165 of April 23, 2002 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Procedures for Producing Evidence, Calculation and Registration of Periods of Insurance" with Articles 64, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Period of InsuranceConstitutional Court held the words and numbers of the Regulation No. 165 of April 23, 2002 by the Cabinet of Ministers “(but not sooner than from the day a person has reached 15 years of age, except the case specified in Paragraph 40 of these Regulations)” do not comply with Article 64 of the Satversme and are invalid from the day of passing the provision.
On Compliance of the Words "Without Restriction on the Term of Office" of Section 7(4) of Constitutional Court Law with Article 83, the First Sentence of Article 91 and Part 1 of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Case of LepseConstitutional court held:
1. The words “a person, who pursuant to the Law “On Judicial Power” has been approved to the office of a judge for an unlimited term” included in the fourth part of Section 7 of the Constitutional Court Law comply with the first part of Article 101 of the Satversme.
2. The words “a person, who pursuant to the Law “On Judicial Power” has been approved to the office of a judge for an unlimited term” of the fourth part of Section 7 of the Constitutional Court Law do not comply with Article 83 and the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme and invalid from April 1, 2008.
3. The fourth part of Section 7 of the Constitutional Court Law shall be applicable according to Article 83, Article 84 and the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
4. The fourth part of Section 7 of the Constitutional Court Law is applicable to the Applicant Andrejs Lepse according to Article 83, Article 84 and the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Provision “if This Person Is Not Employed on the Day of the Granting of the Benefit (is not Deemed to Be an Employee or Self-Employed Person in Accordance with Law on State Social Insurance)” Included in Part 1 of Section 7.1 of Law On State Social Allowances with Articles 91 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “up to 1 January 1996” of Para 2 of Section 13(1) and Para 3 of Section 13(1) of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Tax on PensionsConstitutional court held words and figures “up to January 1, 1996” of Item 2 of the first part of Section 13 and Item 3 of the first part of Section 13 of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” comply with Section 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22(4) of Law on Personal Income Tax with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-28-01
On Compliance of Section 24(3) of Strike Law with Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Procedure for Suspending a StrikeConstitutional Court held the third part of Section 24 of the Strike Law complies with Section 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words “Residence Permits are Not Issued” Included in Section 35 of Law on Entry and Residence of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons in the Republic of Latvia and the Words “the Issue of a Residence Permit Shall be Refused” Included in Section 34 of Immigration Law with Article 96 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of August 8. 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation No. 1003 of 7 December 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers " Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Plan of the Binding Regulation No. 4 of January 25, 2006 by Limbaži City Council on "Graphical Section of the Spatial Plan of Limbaži City and Regulations of Utilization and Construction of the Territory", wherewith the Land Parcel of 24 Cēsu Street is Included in the Territory of Natural Foundation of the Target Group of Territorial Utilization and Real Estate or of Free Construction Territory for Wood Parks and Parks, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of LimbažiConstitutional Court held the plan of the regulations No. 4 of January 25, 2006 of “ Graphical Part of the Spatial Plan of Limbaži City and Regulations of Utilization and Construction of the Territory” binding on the Limbaži City Council, wherewith the land parcel at 24 Cēsu Street has been included in the territory of natural foundation of the target group of territorial use and real estate or of free construction territory for wood parks and parks, complies with Section 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of Regulation Nr. 1003 of 7 December 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Second Part of Section 55 of the Sentence Execution Code with Article 91 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Deductions from the Convicted Persons' Remuneration for WorkConstitutional court held:
1. The second part of Article 55 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences of the Republic of Latvia is in conflict with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. The second part of Article 55 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences of the Republic of Latvia is in conflict with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from December 15, 2007.
On Compliance of Para 23.5 of the Regulation No. 746 of 24 August 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Regulations on Work Remuneration for Teachers" with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Teachers' RemunerationConstitutional Court held Paragraph 23.1 of the Regulation No. 746 of the Cabinet of Ministers of August 24, 2004 “Regulations On Work Remuneration of Teachers” comply with Section 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 5 of the Transitional Provisions of State Civil Service Law and Regulation of February 20, 2001 by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 79 “Regulations on the Procedure and the Term for Applying the Mandatory Requirement Set for Civil Servants – Higher Education” with Articles 1, 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Dismissal of Civil Servants from OfficeConstitutional court held:
1. Para 5 of the Transitional Provisions of the State Civil Service Law complies with Articles 1, 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. Paras 1 – 6 and Paras 8 – 10 of the Regulation of February 20, 2001 by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 79 “Regulations on Application Order and Term of the Mandatory Requirement for Civil Servants – Higher Education” comply with Articles 1, 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. Para 7 of the Regulation of February 20, 2001 by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 79 “Regulations on Application Order and Term of the Mandatory Requirement for Civil Servants – Higher Education” complies with Articles 1, 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia if it is related to the persons mentioned in Para 4 of the Concluding Part of the Judgment.
4. As to the persons who initiated studies in an institution of higher education and discontinued them due to relevant and justifying conditions, Para 7 of the Regulation of February 20, 2001 by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 79 “Regulations on Application Order and Term of the Mandatory Requirement for Civil Servants – Higher Education” is in conflict with Articles 1, 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the day of coming into force.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 22 of Law On Personal Income Tax with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Amount of Personal Income TaxConstitutional Court held:
1. to recognize the second sentence of the fourth part of Section 22 of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” to be in conflict with Section 92 of the Satverme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of October 1, 2007.
2. In regard to the administrative cases, which have been initiated prior to the date of publishing this judgment of the Constitutional Court, recognize the second sentence of the fourth part of Section 22 of the Law “On Personal Income Tax” to be in conflict with Section 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date of the judgment taking effect.
On Compliance of Sub-para 3 of Para 3 of Regulation No. 740 of August 24, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Regulations On Grants" and Sub-para 2 of Para 2 of the Statutes of the University of Latvia “On Allocation of Grants Funded by the State Budget of the University of Latvia” with Articles 91, 106 and 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of August 8, 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-24-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of 7 December 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed" and Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of 8 August 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers "Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of August 8, 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “not More than LVL 392” of the Provision Included in Para 2.2 of the Regulation No. 644 of August 8, 2006 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Regulations Regarding the Amount of the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery, the Review Procedures Thereof, Procedures for the Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Supplement with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Provision of Para 1 of Section(1) of Law on State Social Allowances – “if this person is not employed (is not considered to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with Law on State Social Insurance) ” with Articles 91 Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-08-01
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of Para 8 and Para 9 of Transitory Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 3 of the Regulation No. 272 of August 15, 2000 by the Cabinet of Ministers on Amendments to Law On Service Pensions for Military Persons Section 3 of the November 30, 2000 Law on Amendments to Law On Service Pensions for Military Persons and May 25, 2006 Law on Amendments to Law On Service Pensions for Military Persons with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Service Pensions for Military PersonsConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare Item 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 15, 2000 Regulations No. 272 ”Amendments to the Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law”, Section 3 of November 30, 2000 Law ”Amendments to the Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law” and May 25, 2006 Law ”An Amendment to the Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law” as unconformable with Section 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from July 1, 2007.
2. As regards those military persons whom – when calculating term of service pensions – the period till August 19, 2009 was taken into consideration, including the calculation of term of service pensions for this time to declare Item 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 15, 2000 Regulations No. 272 ”Amendments to Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law” and May 25, 2006 Law ”Amendments to Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law” as unconformable with Sections 1 and 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as from the day of their adoption. In this case Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the Military Persons’ Term of Service Pension Law is in effect in the wording in which it was valid till the day of Regulations No. 272 taking effect.
On Compliance of Section 1(1), Section 4(1), Section 6(3), Section 22 and Section 50 of Public Prosecutor’s Office Law with Article 1, Article 58, Article 82, Article 86 and Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Prosecutor's OfficeConstitutional Court ruled to declare Section 1, Paragraph 1; Section 4, Paragraph 1; Section 6, Paragraph 3; Sections 22 and 50 of the Office of the Prosecutor Law as conformable with Sections 1, 58, 82, 86 and 90 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-10-03
On Compliance of the Words “and not More than LVL 392 per Month” of the Provision Included in Para 3.1 of the Regulation Nr. 1003 of December 7, 2004 by the Cabinet of Ministers, Procedures by Which the Allowance for Child Care and the Supplement to the Allowance for Child Care for Twins or More Children Born During One Delivery Shall be Granted and Disbursed with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Allowance for Child CareConstitutional Court ruled to declare Item 3.1. of the Cabinet of Ministers December 7, 2004 Regulations No. 1003 ”On the Procedure under which the Allowance for Childcare and Additional Payment for Twins or Several Children Born in One Confinement shall be Granted and Paid” and words ”and not more than 392 lats per month”, which are Included in Item 2.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 8, 2006 Regulations No. 644 ”Regulations on the Amount of Childcare Allowance and Additional Payment for Twins or Several Children Born in One Confinement as well as on the Procedure for Revision of it and Granting and Payment of the Allowance and Additional Payment” as Conformable with Section 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Part of Spatial Plan of the Garkalne Parish Providing for Building on the Flooding Area of Lielais Baltezers with Article 1 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan of GarkalneConstitutional Court ruled to declare the part of the Garkalne Pagasts Spatial Plan for 2004 – 2016, which envisages construction of buildings on the flood zone of the Big Baltezers Lake as unconformable with Section 115 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from January 5, 2005.
On Compliance of the Provision “if This Person was not Been Employed (is not Deemed to Be an Employee or Self-Employed Person in Accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance)” of Section 7.1 of Law On State Social Allowances with Articles 91 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Allowance for Caring for a Disabled ChildConstitutional Court held to recognize the provision contained in the first part of Section 71 of the Law On The State Social Allowances - “if the referred to person is not employed (is not deemed to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance)” to be in conflict with Section 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and invalid from January 1, 2006.
On Compliance of that Paragraph of Section 1 of the Law “Amendments to the Law on State Social Allowances” by which a new paragraph - Para 3 of Section 7(1) into the State Social Allowances Law, as well as the Compliance of its Section 2 with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Allowance for Child CareConstitution al Court ruled:
1. To declare part of Section 1 of the Law ”Amendments to the State Social Allowances Law” by which a new Item – Item 3 – has been included in the State Social Allowances Law as conformable with Section 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
2. To declare Section 2 of the Law ”Amendments to the State Social Allowances Law” by which Section 15 of the State Social Allowances Law has been supplemented with a new – the sixth Paragraph, as unconformable with Section 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of March 1, 2007.
On Compliance of Sub-para 12 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2006-04-01
On Compliance of the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth part of Section 46 of Radio and Television Law with Article 58 and Article91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The National Radio and TV CouncilConstitutional Court ruled to declare Section 46 – Paragraphs six, seven, eight and nine - of the Radio and Television Law as conformable with Sections 58 and 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Paragraph 16, Subparagraph 12 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions Transitional Provisions with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Granting of Pensions AnewConstitutional Court ruled to declare Paragraph 16, Subparagraph 12 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions” as conformable with Sections 1, 91 and 109 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On the Compliance of the Words ”or other means” and ”as well as orally expressed various addresses, slogans or speeches" in Section 1(4) , Section 9(1), the words "keepers of public order" in Para 1 Section 12(3), the words "and pedestrians" of Section 13(2), the second sentence in Section 14(6), the words "not earlier than 10 days" of Section 15(4), Section 16 and Section 18(4) of Law On Meetings, Processions and Pickets 4 with Article 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as with Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Case short name: The Permission to Exercise the Freedom of AssemblyConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare words ” or other attributes” and ”or addresses”, which are incorporated into Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Law ”On Meetings, Processions and Pickets” as well as the words ”and pedestrians”, included in Section 13, Paragraph 3 as conformable with Section 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Section 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Section 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. To declare the words ”as well as verbally expressed separate slogans, exclamations”, which are included in Section 1, Paragraph 4; Paragraph 1 of Section 9; the words ”keepers of public order”, which are included in Section 12, Paragraph 3, Item 1; the second sentence of Section 14, Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 4 of Section 18 of the Law ”On Meetings, Processions and Pickets” as unconformable with Section 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Section 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as with Section 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and null and void as of the moment of publishing of the Judgment.
3. To declare the words ”not earlier than 10 days and not later than 48 hours before the beginning of the activity”, which are incorporated into Section 15, Paragraph 4 of the Law ”On Meetings, Processions and Pickets” as unconformable with Section 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme if being read in conjunction with Section 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from the moment of publishing of the Judgment.
4. To declare Sections 15 and 17 of the Law ”On Meetings, Processions and Pickets” as unconformable with Section 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Section 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Section 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and null and void from June 1, 2007.
5. To determine that till June 1, 2007 the norms of Chapter III of the Law ”On Meetings, Processions and Pickets” shall be applied in accordance with Section 103 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 42 of Law on Gambling and Lotteries with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 3 and the Third, the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Article 4 of European Charter of Local Self-Governments
On Compliance of Para5 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 9, Article 91 and Article100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Article 25 and Article 26 of International pact of Civil and Political Rights
Combined case: 2005-13-0106
On the Compliance of Section 13(1) of April 7, 2004 Law Amendments to the Law On the Privatization of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses” with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Case short name: The Non-delivery of Rented Apartments for PrivatisationConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare Section 13, the first Paragraph of the April 7, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ” On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses”” as unconformable with Section 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from the moment of its passing.
2. To determine that Section 74, the fifth Paragraph of the Law ”On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses” is valid in the wording, in which it was in effect till the moment of adoption of April 7, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses””.
On the Compliance of Para 8 of Section 5(3) of Law On Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau with the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Rights of Former KGB Employees to Hold an Office at the Corruption Prevention and Combatting BureauConstitutional Court ruled to declare Section 5 (Item 8 of the third Paragraph) of the Law on Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau as conformable with the first Part of Section 101 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Para 8 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 28 September 2004 "Regulations on the System of Remuneration for Work to Health Care Employees and Specialists of Social Work of Institutions Financed from the State Budget" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words “Defendant, Accused or Suspect” of Para 4 of Section 14(1) of Law “On the Insolvency of Enterprises and Companies” (in the Wording, which was in Effect till June 15, 2005) with Articles 92 and 106 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the words ”defendant, accused or suspect”, incorporated in the norm of Section 14 ( Item 4 of the first Part) of the Law ”On the Insolvency of Undertakings and Companies” (in the wording which was in effect till June 15, 2005) as conformable with Articles 92 and 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of the Note to Section 98 of Land Register Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2005-18-01
On Compliance of Law of 9 June 2005 "Amendments to the Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Combined case: 2005-12-0103
On Compliance of the Words “and Has Been Living in the Republic of Latvia not less than 60 Months, the Last 12 Months of which Continuously” ,of Para 2 of Section 4 (5) of Law on State Social Allowances with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the words ”and has been living in the Republic of Latvia not less than 60 months, the last 12 months of which continuously”, which are incorporated in Section 4 (Item 2 of the fifth Part) of the Law on State Social Allowances, as unconformable with Section 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from January 1, 2003.
On Compliance of the Words ”in Paragraph Three” Included in the Fourth Paragraph of Section 449 of Civil Procedure Law and Note to Section 98 of Land Register Law with Section 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Case short name: The Security DepositConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the words ”and in the third Paragraph”, included in Section 449 (the fourth Paragraph) and Nota Bene of Section 98 of the Land Book Law as unconformable with Section 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from July 1, 2006.
2. To determine that till July 1, 2006 in the category of these cases the general principle of civil procedural rights, which has been fixed in Section 43 (the fourth Paragraph) and Section 458 (the fourth Paragraph) of the Civil Procedure Law, shall be applied by procedural analogy.
3. To determine that the submitter of the constitutional complaint – Oļegs Kožečenkovs – experiences the right of appealing against the Civil Court Panel of the Supreme Court February 10, 2005 resolution and request to completely or partly exempt him from the payment of the State duty.
On Compliance of the Words “to Mail Letters”, Included in Section 74 (1) of Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Articles 89, 92 and 104 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Convicted Persons' Right to CorrespondenceConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the words ”to mail letters”, incorporated in the first part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code as conformable with Articles 89, 92 and 104 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
2. The term ”letters”, included in the first part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty execution Code shall be interpreted in a narrow meaning – as ”letters to private persons”.
On Compliance of Section 13 of December 20, 2004 Law “Amendments to the Law “On Residential Tenancy”” with Articles 1, 91 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Case short name: The Rent CeilingConstitutional Court ruled to declare Section 13 of December 20, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Residential Tenancy” in the part on Amendments to Paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On Residential Tenancy” as unconformable with Sections 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and invalid as of January 1, 2007.
On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 9 April 2002 No.155 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs of Sentenced Persons" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 15 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: 2005-08-01
On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law and Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 9 (1) of the Law on Elections of the Municipal Council, County Council and Parish Council with Articles 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Saeima of Republic of Latvia, as well as with Articles 25 and 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Case short name: Restrictions of the Election Right IIConstitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare that Section 5, Items 5 and 6 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 9, Items 5 and 6 of the first Paragraph of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural District Council Election Law complies with Sections 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and Sections 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. To declare that with regard to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Juris Bojārs Section 5, Item 5 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 9, Item 6 of the first Paragraph of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural District Council are unconformable with Sections 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme as well as with Sections 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and shall lose validity from the day of publishing of the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers November 11, 2005 Regulations No. 17 “Amendments to Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” and June 9, 2005 Law “Amendments to Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers January 11, 2005 Regulations No. 17 ” Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” as unconformable with Article 81 of the Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its issuance.
2. To declare the Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” as unconformable with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its adoption.
3. As concerns the submitters of the constitutional claim – Juris Jaunzems, Tatjana Čerkovska, Valentīna Leitēna and Gints Gailītis to declare the Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs” as null and void as of the moment of its adoption.
4. To declare that September 15, 1992 Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs” shall be in effect in the wording, which was valid till January 11, 2005 when the Cabinet of Ministers issued Regulations No. 17 ”Amendments to the Law ” On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Combined case: 2005-03-0306
On Compliance of Para 8.3.1 of the Second part of Kuldīga District Spatial Plan of 15 December 1999 by Kuldīga District Council on Spīķi HPS, and the Spatial Plan of Vārme Parish of 20 February 2003 by Vārme Parish Council on Including the Land of Farmstead "Baloži" in the Territory of Spīķi HPS with Article 105 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court ruled:
1) to terminate the matter on the compliance of the Kuldīga District Council December 15, 1999 Spatial Plan (Part 2, Item 8.3.1.) on Spīķi HES with Article 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme;
2) to declare Kuldīga District Vārme Pagasts Council June 17, 2004 Vārme Pagasts Spatial Plan on the permitted utilization of the flooded ”Baloži” farmstead as unconformable with Section 41, Part 2 of the Law ”On Local Governments” and null and void from the moment of its acceptance.
On Compliance of the Provision of Para 1 of Section(1) of Law on State Social Allowances – “if this person is not employed (is not considered to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave” with Articles 91, 106 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the term, included in Section 7 (Item 1 of the First Paragraph) of the Law on State Social Allowances- ”if this person is not employed (is not considered to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave”- as unconformable with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from March 1, 2006.
As concerns the submitters of the constitutional claim – Kristīne Dupate, Aija Freimane and Aivita Putniņa – to declare the term, included in Section 7 (Item 1 of the First Paragraph) of the Law on State Social Allowances – ”if this person is not employed (is not considered to be employee or self-employed person in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave” – as unconformable with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of March 8, 2005.
On Compliance of Ppara 15 of Law On State pensions with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Item 15 of the Pension Law Transitional Provisions as conformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On the Compliance of Section 11 ( 6) of Law On State Secret with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Scetion 11 (the sixth paragraph) of the Law ”On State Secret” as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2005-03-0306
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2005-03-0306
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Combined case: 2005-03-0306
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Item 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers April 22, 2004 Regulations No. 417 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers February 19, 2002 Regulations No.74 ”The Payment Procedure for the Labour of Inmates at the Institutions of Deprivation of Liberty”” as unconformable with Article 64 of the Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its publication”.
On the Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 59 (2) in the Part on Participation in Financing of Private Educational Institutions if the Programs are Implemented in the Official language of Education Law 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 Interconnection with Article 2 of the First Protocol)
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the phrase ”the State language”, included in Section 59 (the second sentence of the second Paragraph) of the Education Law as unconformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from the moment of publication of the Judgment.
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 23(5) of Law On Police with Article 102 and Article 108 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 32 of Transitional Provisions of Immigration Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 2.2 and Para 2.3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 15 January 2002 No. 27 "Regulations of Rivers (Sections in Rivers), where it is Prohibited to Build and to Restore Dams of Hydroelectric Power Stations or to Construct Any Obstacles, for the Purpose of Protecting Fish Resources" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 9.3 and Para 44 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia Regulation of 18 October 2000 No.357 "On Applying the Norms of Law On Personal Income Tax" with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 1 in the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 77(4) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 and Article 94 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 32 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Combined case: 2004-21-01
On Compliance of Para 32 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Paragraph 32 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions” as unconformable with Article 109 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from the moment when Paragraph 26 of the Transitional Provisions of the Pension Law lost effect, that is, from March 20, 2002.
On Compliance of Section 80 of Law On Bailiffs and the Instruction of the Ministry of Justice "Remuneration Rates for Duties of Office of Sworn Bailiffs" with Article 1, Article 89 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On the Compliance of Section 21, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Law with Articles 1 and 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the third Paragraph of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Law as conformable to Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance ofSub-para3 of Para 9 of Transitional Provisions in Education Law Transitional with Articles 1, 91 and 114 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as its Article 14 (linked with Article 2 of the First Protocol), Articles 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 5 of the International Convention on Elimination of any Form of Race Discrimination, Articles 2 and 30 of Convention on the Rights of a Child ,as well as Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the International Agreement Rights
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the Education Law Transitional Provisions as conformable with Articles 1, 91 and 114 of the Satversme; Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Article 14 (in conjunction with Article 2 of the First Protocol); Articles 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 5 of International Convention on Elimination of Race Discrimination of any Kind; Articles 2 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child as well as Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on International Agreement Rights.
On Compliance of the Norm “Use of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances without a Physician’s Prescription“, Included in Section 253.2(1) of the Republic of Latvian Criminal Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the norm, incorporated in the first part of Section 2532 of the Criminal Law, ”use of narcotic and psychotropic substances without a physician’s designation” as conformable with Article 96 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 124 of Administrative Violations Procedure Law on Payment of State Fee in Cases of Administrative Violations with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the first and second Paragraphs of Section 124 of APL on the payment of State fee in matters of misdemeanor as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Para 5 of Section 1(3), Para 2 of Section 2(2), Para 2 of Section 7(1) of Law On the Status of Former USSR Citizens, Who are not Citizens of Latvia or Any Other State with Article 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Articles 2 and 3 of the Fourth Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Para 1 of Article 8 of August 30, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Number of Stateless Persons
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. to declare Article 1 (Item 5 of the First Paragraph) of the Law ”On the Status of Former USSR Citizens, Who are not Citizens of Latvia or Any Other State” as unconformable with Article 98 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of September 1, 2005;
2. to declare Article 7 (Item 2 of the First Paragraph) of the Law ” On the Status of Former USSR Citizens, Who are not Citizens of Latvia or Any Other State” as unconformable with Article 98 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of September 1, 2005;
3. to declare Article 2 (Item 2 of the Second Paragraph) of the Law ”On the Status of Former USSR Citizens, Who are not Citizens of Latvia or Any Other State” as being in compliance with Article 3, Item 1 of the Fourth Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
On Compliance of Section 61 (6) of Immigration Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the phrase ”a decision taken in accordance with Paragraph one of this Section shall not be subject to appeal”, which is incorporated in Section 61 (the sixth Paragraph) of the Immigration Law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of May 1, 2005.
On Compliance of May 27, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Storing and Use of Documents of the Former State Security Committee and on Stating of Facts about Persons’ Collaboration with the State Security Committee”” with Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as with Article 3 of its First Protocol
Constitutional Court ruled to declare May 27, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ” On Maintenance and Use of Documents of the Former State Security Committee and on Stating of Facts about Persons’ Collaboration with the State Security Committee”” as conformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 3 of its First Protocol.
On Compliance of Section 30(6) of Law On State Pensions with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2004-03-01
On Compliance of Section 30(5) of Law On State Pensions with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2004-03-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 132 (1) and Para 6 of Section 223 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Section 132 (Item 3 of the first Part) and Item 6 of Section 223 of the Civil Procedure Law as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 220 and Section 222 of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2004-06-01
On Compliance of Section 220 and Section 222 of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2004-06-01
On Compliance of Section 220 and Section 222 of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2004-06-01
On Compliance of Section 220 and Section 222 of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Articles 220 and 222 as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution).
On Compliance of Section 50.4(4) of Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Article 91, Article 94 and Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Words "or a Lay Judge", included in the provisions of Section 75 of Law On Judicial Power" with Articles 84 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the words ” or the lay judge”, included in the norm of Article 75 of the Law ”On the Judicial Power” as unconformable with Articles 84 and 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
On the Compliance of Article 30 (Parts five and six) of Law On State Pensions with Articles 1 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. to declare the fifth Part of Article 30 of the Law ”On State Pensions” as conformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
2. to declare the sixth Part of Article 30 of the Law ”On State Pensions” and Paragraph 24 of the Transitional Provisions as unconformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of it taking effect with regard to those persons, to whom the payment of the pension was interrupted on the basis of person’s application in accordance with Paragraph 16, Subparagraph 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions”.
On Compliance of Section 155(6) of Civil Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4 of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born Outside of Wedlock
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the sixth part of Article 155 of the Civil Law as unconformable with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and Article 4 of the European Convention on the Status of Children Born out of Wedlock and null and void as of the day of publishing this Judgment.
On Compliance of Section 114.2 of Administrative Violation Code with April 9, 1965 Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the following text of Article 1142 (the first part) of the Latvian Administrative Violation Code: ”for carrying one or several persons from the foreign states to the Republic of Latvia if the above persons do not have valid travel documents for crossing the Republic of Latvia border and if it has been realized by the carrier of maritime transport” from the moment of its adoption till May 1, 2004 as unconformable with Standard 3.15 of the International Convention on Facilitation of Maritime Traffic, signed in London on April 9, 1965 and null and void as concerns the carriers of those states, which are the Contracting States of the above Convention.
2. To declare the following text of the first part of Article 1142 of the Latvian Administrative Violation Code: ” for carrying one or several persons from the foreign states to the Republic of Latvia if the above persons do not have valid travel documents for crossing the Republic of Latvia border and if it has been realized by the carrier of maritime transport” from May 1, 2004 as unconformable with Standard 3.15 of the International Convention on Facilitation of Maritime Traffic, signed in London on April 9, 1965 and null and void as regards the carriers of those states, which are Contracting States of the above Convention but are not EU Member States.
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 43 (1) of Law On Local Governments with Articles 91, 106 and 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Section 43 (Item 6 of the first part) of the Law ”On Local Governments” as CONFORMABLE with Articles 91, 106 and 107 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Article 17 (5) of the Law "On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases with Articles 91 and 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 17 (the fifth part) of the Law ”On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” as unconformable with Articles 91 and 109 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Para 2 and Para 6 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 5, 2003 Regulations No.438 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers May 13, 1997 Regulations No.180 "By-law of the Guarantee (Reserve) Fund of Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for Owners of Road Transport"" 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
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the first part of Item 6 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 438 of August 5, 2003 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers May 13, 1997 Regulations No. 180 ”By-law of the Guarantee (Reserve) Fund of Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for Owners of Road Transport”” as unconformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its adoption.
2. To terminate proceedings in the case on the compliance of Item 2 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 5, 2003 Regulations No. 438 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of ministers May 13, 1997 Regulations No.180 ”By-law of the Guarantee (Reserve) Fund of Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for Owners of Road Transport”” with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 10, Para 3 and Para 4 of Section 11, Section 14 and Para 6 and Para 8 of Transitional Provisions of the Law "On Preservation and Protection of the Riga Historical Centre" with Articles 1 and 58 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare Articles 10, 11 (Items 3 and 4), 14 and Items 6 and 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Riga Historical Centre Preservation and Protection Law as conformable with Article 58 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
2. To terminate proceedings on the compliance of Articles 10, 11 (Items 3 and 4), 14 and Items 6 and 8 of the Transitional Provisions with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Sub-para 4 of Para 2 of Transitional Provisions and Section 31 (4) of Law On Maternity and Sickness Insurance, as well as the Cabinet of Ministers July 28, 1998 Regulations No.270 "The Procedure of Calculating the Average Insurance Payment Salary and the Procedure of Granting, Calculation and Payment of the State Social Insurance Benefits" with Articles 1, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare the fourth part of Article 31 (in the wording, which was in effect up to January 1, 2003) and Item 2, Sub-item 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” as being unconformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia and – as concerns the submitters of the constitutional claim Irīna Pīgozne and Baiba Strupiša – null and void as of the moment when the right to the sickness and maternity benefits arose.
On Compliance of the Decree by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Governments of 2 June 2003 No.2-02/60 "On Suspending Binding Regulations of Jūrmala City Council of 09.10.2002 No. 18 "On Approving the Spatial Planning in Jūrmala, Community Centre in Vaivari" with Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2003-16-05
On Compliance of the Decree by the Minister for Regional Development and Local Governments of 2 June 2003 No.2-02/60 "On Suspending Binding Regulations of Jūrmala City Coucnil of 09.10.2002 No. 18 "On Approving the Spatial Planning in Jūrmala, Land Plot Bulduri 1001" with Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2003-16-05
On Compliance of the Minister for Regional Development and Local Governments of May 27, 2003 Decree No.2-02/57 on Suspending the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Council October 24, 2001 Binding Regulations No.17 "On the Jūrmala Detailed Land Use Plan for the Territory between the Bulduri Prospect, Rotas Street and 23–25 Avenues"; the Minister for Regional Development and Local Governments June 2, 2003 Decree No.2-02/60 on Suspending the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Council October 9, 2002 Binding Regulations No.10 "On the Confirmation of the Detailed Land Use Plan for the Community Centre "Vaivari" as well as the Ministerforf Regional Development and Local Governments Decree No.2-02/62 on Suspending the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Dome November 7, 2001 Binding Regulations No.18 "On the Confirmation of the Detailed Land Use Plan for the Plot Bulduri 1001, Jūrmala" with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled:
2. To declare the Minister of Regional Development and Municipal Affairs May 27, 2003 Order No. 2-02/57 ”On Suspension of the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Dome October 24, 2001 Binding Regulations No.17 ”On the Land Use Plan in Jūrmala, in the territory between the Bulduri Prospect, Rotas Street and 23-25 Avenues”” as conformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme;
3. To declare the Minister of Regional Development and Municipal Affairs June 2, 2004 Order No. 2-02/60 ”On Suspension of the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Dome October 9, 2002 Binding Regulations No.10 ”On the Confirmation of the Land Use Plan for the Public Centre ”Vaivari”” as conformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme;
4. To declare the Minister of Regional Development and Municipal Affairs June 2, 2003 Order No. 2-02/62 ”On Suspension of the Enforcement of the Jūrmala City Dome November 7, 2001 Binding Regulations No.18 ” On the Confirmation of the Land Use Plan for the Land Plot Bulduri 1001, Jūrmala”” as conformable with Article 1 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Para 9 and Para 94 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of April 29, 2003 No.211 "On the Internal Order of the Investigation Prisons" with Articles 91 and 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the prohibition of receiving food parcels, following from the Cabinet of Ministers April 29, 2003 Regulations No. 211 ”Regulations on the Internal Order of the Investigation Prisons” as unconformable with Article 111 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of July 1, 2004 if by that time the Cabinet of Ministers will not ensure that the daily food norms for the arrested persons comply with the requirements, established in ”The Recommended Nutrient Norms for the Inhabitants of Latvia”.
2. To declare Item 94 of the Cabinet of Ministers April 29, 2003 Regulations No. 211 ”On the Internal Order of the Investigation Prisons” about buying foodstuffs at the prison shop as being in compliance with Article 111 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On the Compliance of Section 2 (6) of Law of Term of Service Pensions for Prosecutors with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 2 (Part 6) of the Law of Term of Service Pensions for Prosecutors as conformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 57 (1), Para 2 and para 3 of Section 136 (3) and Para 2 and para 3 of Section 143 (4) of Labour Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the June 28, 1930 Convention Concerning Forced Labour and Article 1 of the June 25, 1957 Convention Concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Section 57 (the first part), Section 136 (Items 2 and 3 of the third part) and Section 143 (Items 2 and 3 of the fourth part) as being in compliance with Article 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Sub-para "f" of Para1 of Section 41 of State Civil Service Law with Articles 91, 101 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 20 of Law On the Handling of Weapons and Sub-para 15.1 of the Cabinet of Minister Regulations of 26 September 1995 No. 287 "Regulations on Hunting Firearms" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 83 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional court ruled to declare Section 83 (Item 4) of the Civil Procedure Law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
On Compliance of Section 82(5) and Section 453(2) of Criminal Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 96(2) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 89 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 96 (the first sentence of the second part) of the Latvian Criminal Procedure law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void from March 1, 2004 if the legislator does not amend the legal regulation of the performance of advocates so that it complies with the standards of the European Union and the European Council and guarantees the right to a fair court in the full range.
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2003-03-01
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2003-03-01
On Compliance of Section 271 of Criminal Law with Articles 91 and 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 271 as unconformable with Article 100 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution) and null and void as of February 1, 2004, if up to that time the legislator has not specified the range of officials, who – for performing the duties assigned to them - need the protection of the Criminal Law.
On Compliance of Section 82 (5) and Section 453 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the fifth part of Article 82 and the second part of Article 453 of the Civil Procedure Law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void as from January 1, 2003.
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Court ruled to declare Article 77 (the third sentence of the seventh part) of the Criminal Procedure Code as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void as of October 1, 2003 if the procedure for insurance of realization of the right of the defendant to be heard out is not determined by the law.
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of the Radio and Television Law with Articles 89, 91, 100 and 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as with Articles 10 and 14 (in Interconnection with Article 10) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 19 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Constitutional Court decided to declare the fifth part of Article 19 of the Radio and Television Law as unconformable with the Republic of Latvia Satversme Article 100 and null and void as of the day of the publication of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Section 29(5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2002-21-01
On Compliance of Section 27 (4) and the Text of Section 28 (2) "for the Time Period until the Age of 65 Years" of Law on Institutions of Higher Education and Section 29 (5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the first sentence of Article 27 of the Higher School Law and the text of Article 28 (the second part) ”or for the time period until the age of 65 years” as well as Article 29 (the first sentence of the fifth part) of the Law ”On Scientific Activity” as unconformable with Article 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the date of the announcement of the Judgment.
On the Compliance of Section 11 (5) of the Law "On State Secrets" and the Cabinet of Ministers June 25, 1997 Regulations "List of Objects of State Secrets" (Chapter XIV, Para 3) with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)
Constitutional Court decided to declare that Article 11 (the Fifth Part) of the Law ”On State Secrets” and the Words ”Clearance Materials”, incorporated into Chapter XIV (Item 3) of the Cabinet of Ministers June 25, 1997 Regulations No. 226 ”The List of Objects of State Secrets” Comply with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of the Decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of 30 October 2001 "On the Legal Status of the Operator of Transmission System of the State Joint Stock Company "Latvenergo" (Minutes No.53, para 44) with Section 20¹ of Energy Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 2 of The Saeima Election Law with Articles 6, 8 and 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)
Constitutional Court decided to declare Article 2, Item 2 of the Saeima Election Law as unconformable with Articles 6 and 8 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as from the day of publishing of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 3 of Section 12(2) and Sub-paragraphs 3.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3 of the Cabinet of Ministers 20 May, 1997 Regulations No.187 "The Procedure for the Compensation Repayment in Cash to Persons who Were Granted Compensation Certificates for the Former Landed Property in Rural Regions" with Articles 1, 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare Article 12, Items 1 and 2 of the second part of the Law ”On Land Privatization in Rural Regions” and the text of Sub-items 3.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3. and 3.3., namely, - ”up to December 31, 1992 have claimed compensation for land” of the Cabinet of Ministers May 20, 1997 Regulations No.187 ”The Procedure for the Compensation Repayment in Cash to Persons who were Granted Compensation Certificates for the Former Landed Property in Rural Regions” as being in conformity with Articles 91 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme””.
On Compliance of Sub-para1 and Sub-para 2 of Para 8 of "Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Rates" by the Energy Supply Regulation Council (in the wording of Para 1 of Decree No. 192 by the Energy Supply Regulation Council of 19, 2000) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 5 of Law On Regulators of Public Utilities, as well as Para 5 of Section 84(5) and Para 2 of Section 85(1) of the Energy Law (in the Wording that was effective until 1 October 2001)
Constitutional Court decided to declare Item 2.8, Sub-items 1 and 2 of the Energy Supply Regulation Council ”Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Rates”as conformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme , Article 5 of the Law ”On Regulators of Public Services” and Articles 84 (Item 5 of the first part) and 85 (Item 2 of the first part) of the Power Industry Law””.
On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pension" in the Part "from January 1, 1991" with Articles 1, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the text ”from January 1, 1991” of Item 16, Sub-item 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions” as unconformable with Article 91 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of its adoption.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Decree of August 8, 2001 No.401 "On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine" with Articles 111 and 115 of the Satversme, Section 5 and Para 1-3 of Section 6 of the Waste Management Law, Section 3 and Section11 of Law On the Environmental Impact Assessment, Section 14 and Section 17 (1) of Law on Pollution, as well as Section 11 of Law On Environmental Protection
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To terminate proceedings on the compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers August 8, 2001 Decree No. 401 ”On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine” with Article 111 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Articles 5 and 6 (Items 1-3) of the Waste Management Law as well as Articles 14 and 17 (the first part) of the Law ”On Pollution”.
2. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers August 8, 2001 Decree No. 401 ”On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine” as being in conformity with Article 115 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Article 11 of the Law ”On Environmental Protection” and Articles 3 and 11 of the Law ”On Environmental Impact Assessment”.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Article 6 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2002-08-01
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 12(1) of Law On Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare that Article 12 (Part 1, Item 3) of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities” in the part on objects of education, culture and science is in compliance with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, if the government in accordance with Article 7 of the Law ”On Objects of Education, Culture, Science and Sport Centers” has determined the land area occupied by the objects and necessary for maintaining up to May 1, 2003.
2. To declare that the other part of Article 12 (Part 1, Item 3) of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities” complies with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
3. To declare that - as concerns the applicants Dzintars Abuls and Velta Lazda- the limitations for restitution of property rights envisaged in Article 12, part 1, Item 3 of the Law ”On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities”, as read together with Article 4, Item 26 of the Law ”On Objects of Education, Culture, Science and Sport Centers of State Significance” are unconformable with Articles 1 and 105 of the Satversme and null and void as of January 4, 1996.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Article 6 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2002-08-01
On Compliance of the Decree by the Cabinet of Minis ters of 7 July 1999 No. 32n1 "On Changing the Equity Capital of the State Joint Stock Company "Valsts nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra" in thePart Regardint the Inclusio of the Building at 24 Kaļķu Street, Riga in the Equity Capital of the SJSC "Valsts nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra" with the First, the Third and the Fourth Part of Section 74 and Para 3 and Para 13 of the Transitional Provisions of Law "On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses"
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers July 7, 1999 Regulations No.321 ”On the Alteration of the Basic Capital of the Agency of the State Real Estate” in the Part on Incorporation of the Building at No. 24 Kaļķu Street, Riga in the Basic Capital of the State Stock Company ”the Agency of the Real Estate” as not being in compliance with Article 74 (the first, third and fourth parts) and Item 3 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On the Privatization of State and Local Government Apartment Houses”” and null and void as of the day of its publishing.
On Compliance of Section 19.2(4) of Constitutional Court Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the fourth part of Article 192 of the Constitutional Court Law as conformable with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence in Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Articles 6, 8, 91 and 116 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided to declare the second sentence of the first part of the Saeima Election Article 38 as being in compliance with Articles 6, 8, 91 and 116 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section(6) of Law On Religious Organisations with Article 91 and Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 49(2) of Law On Judicial Power with Articles 1 and 83 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided to declare the second part of Article 49 of the Law on Judicial Power (in the wording, which was valid up to December 3, 2002) as unconformable with Articles 1 and 83 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and with regard to the submitter of the constitutional claim Antons Zīle as invalid from October 12, 2000.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 4 and Section 10(5) of Law On Excise Tax, as well as the compliance of Para 24 (in the Part on Customs Payments to be Applied to a Vehicle) of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of October 10, 2000 No.349 "The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission" with Articles 89, 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia; with the Second Part of Article 2 of the Istanbul Convention of June 26, 1990 "On Temporary Admission", as well as Articles 7 and 9 (the Second Part) of Annex C to the Convention and with Standards 30 and 34 of Annex F3 to the May 18, 1973 Kyoto International Convention on Simplification and Harmonizing of Customs Procedures
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To terminate proceedings of the case in the part on the compliance of Item 3 of Article 4 and the fifth part of Article 10 of the Law ”On Excise Tax” as well as on the conformity of the Cabinet of Ministers October 10, 2000 Regulations No 349 ”The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission” with Articles 89, 91 and 105 of the Satversme.
2. To declare Item 3 of Article 4 and the fifth part of Article 10 of the Law ”On Excise Tax” as well as Item 24 (in the part on Customs payments to be applied to means of transport) of the Cabinet of Ministers October 10, 2000 Regulations No. 349 ”The Process of Implementation of the Customs Procedure – Temporary Admission” as being in compliance with the second part of Article 2 of the Istanbul Convention of June 26, 1990 ”On Temporary Admission” , with Articles 7 and the second part of Article 9 of Annex C to the Convention and as being in compliance with Standards 30 and 34 of Annex F3 to the May 18, 1973 Kyoto International Convention on Simplification and Harmonizing of Customs Procedures.
On Compliance of Para 59.1.6, 66 and 68 of the "Regulations on the Internal Order of the Investigatory Prisons" with Articles 89, 95 and 111 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Items 64 and 66 of the ”Rules on the Internal Order of Investigatory Prisons ”, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Article 64, 89 and 111 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
2. To declare Item 68 of and Annex 6 to the ”Rules on the Internal Order of Investigatory Prisons”, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Articles 64 and 89 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
3. To declare the other part of the ”Rules on the Internal Order ofInvestigatory Prisons””, confirmed by the Department of the Places of Confinement May 9, 2001 Order No. 63 as unconformable with Article 64 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from May 1, 2003.
On Compliance of the First Part of Para 49 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 18 July 1995 No. 12 "Regulations on using Privatisation Vouchers" with Section 18(16) of Law on Privatisation Vouchers and Article 105 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2001-17-0106
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 31 July 2001 No. 349 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 3 October 1995 No. 291 "Regulation on Keeping Dogs and Cats" with Article 105 of the Satversme and Para 3 of Section 14 of Law "Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers"
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers July 31, 2001 Regulations No. 349 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers October 3, 1995 Regulations No. 291 ” Regulations of Keeping Dogs and Cats”” as unconformable with Article 105 of the Satversme and Article 14, Paragraph 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Structure Law as null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Latvian Administrative Violation Code Section 279 (2) and Para 4 of Section 280 (1) in the Part Determining that a Court Judgment on the Decision of an Official about Imposing Administrative Punishment is Final and the Latvian Civil Procedure Code Section 239 (4) with Articles 89, 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare the norms of the fourth part of the Latvian Civil Procedure Code Article 239 as well as the norms of the second part of Article 279 and those of Article 280 of the Administrative Violation Code, determining that the court judgment on the decision taken in an administrative violation case is final as unconformable with Articles 89 and 92 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of publication of the Judgment.
2. As regards the submitter of the constitutional claim V. Vaitonis - to declare the second part of Latvian Administrative Violation Code Article 279 as invalid as from July 27, 2001 .
3. As regards the submitter of the constitutional claim T. Šnevele - to declare the norm of Article 280 (Paragraph 4 of the first part), determining that the court judgment in the case on the decision by an official about imposing of an administrative penalty is final as well as the fourth part of Article 239 of the Latvian Civil Procedure Code as null and void as from September 18, 2001.
On Compliance of the Requirement, Incorporated into the Public Procurator’s Office Law (Section 33(1))the Republic of Latvia Advocacy Law (Para 3 of Section 14) and Notariate law (Para 3 of Section 9), Envisaging the Necessity of Opinion by the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the norm incorporated into the first part of Article 33 of the Public Procurator’s Office Law, Article 14 (Paragraph 3) of the Law on Advokatūra (on Legal Profession) and Article 9 (Paragraph 3) of the Notary Law ”…in the University of Latvia or any other higher education institution compatible with the University of Latvia in accordance with the opinion by the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia” as unconformable with Articles 91 and 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing of the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No.73 "Internal Rules of Procedure of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty" in the Part Prohibiting Parcels and Packages of Food Products with Section 47(1) of Latvian Sentence Execution Code and Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers February 19, 2002 Regulations No. 73 ” On the Internal Order at the Institutions of Deprivation of Liberty” in the part on prohibition of food parcels as unconformable with the first part of Article 47 of the Latvia Punishment Execution Code and null and void as of the day of its publishing.
On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2001-12-01
On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2001-12-01
On Compliance of Para 26 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare Paragraph 26 of the Pension Law Transitional Provisions as unconformable with Article 1 of the Satversme and null and void from the day of publishing the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Requirement Included into Section 6(1) of Law On Employment on the Necessity of Having the Permanent Residence Permit to Obtain the Status of the Unemployed with Articles 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the requirement, incorporated into the first part of Article 6 of the Law ”On Employment”, requiring that, to obtain the status of an unemployed, the spouses of Latvian citizens, non-citizens, foreign citizens or stateless persons, who have received a permanent residence permit shall have a permanent residence permit and not a temporary residence permit, as unconformable with Articles 91 and 109 and null and void from the date of publishing of the Judgment.
On the Compliance of Section 390.- 392.2 of Latvia Criminal Procedure Code as well as Para 3 of Transitional Provisions of the Amendments to Latvia Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 2.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 27 February 2001 No. 92 "On Establishing the Volume of Sugar-beet Deliveries to Growers of Sugar-beets" in the Part on Establishing the Volume of Sugar-beet Deliveries on the Basis of the Volume of Sugar-beet Deliveries Established in 2000 with Article 91 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided to declare Item 2, Sub-item 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers February 27, 2001 Regulations No.92 ”The Procedure of Stating the Amount of Sugar-beet Supply for the Sugar-beet Growers” in the part of determining the amount of sugar-beet supply on the basis of the amount of sugar-beet supply determined for the sugar-beet growers in 2000 as unconformable with Article 1 of the Satversme and the third part of Article 3 of the Law ”On Sugar” and null and void from the moment of the publication of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Section 348 (7) of Civil Proceedings Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the seventh part of Article 348 of the Civil Proceedings Law as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On the Conformity of Article 2 of the Law ”On Compensation for Damages, Suffered as a Result of the Unlawful or Groundless Action of Investigator, Prosecutor or Judge” and Item 3, Subitem 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 31, 1998 Regulations No. 327 ”On the Procedure for Submitting and Considering Applications, Passing Decisions, Reinstating Employment and Social Guarantees and Payment of Compensation for Damages” with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided to declare Article 2, Item 1 of the Law ” On Compensation for Damages Suffered as a Result of the Unlawful or Groundless Action of Investigator, Prosecutor or Judge” and Item 3, Subitem 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers August 31, 1998 Regulations No. 327 ” On the Procedure for Submitting and Considering Applications, Passing Decisions, Reinstating Employment and Social Guarantees and Payment of Compensation for Damages” as being in compliance with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme (Constitution) and not violating the fundamental rights of a person, established by the Constitution.
On Compliance of Para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the First Sentence of Para 9 of the Saeima Presidium Regulations of February 28, 2000 "On the Procedure of Compensating Expenses Incurred by the Deputies while Exercising their Authority" with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme
Constitutional Court decided To declare February 28, 2000 Presidium of the Republic of Latvia Regulation ”On the Procedure of Granting and Paying Compensations to the Saeima Deputies” and confirmed by it ”Regulations on the Procedure of Compensating the Expenses, which have Occurred to the Deputies while Fulfilling their Duties” as unconformable with Articles 1 and 91 of the Satversme and null and void from the day of publishing of the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Ministry of Justice May 9, 2001 Instruction No.1-1/187 "Transitional Provisions on the Procedure of Holding the Suspected, Accused, Detained and Sentenced Persons in Investigation Prisons" with Articles 95 and 111 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Regulations of the Internal Order in Investigation Prisons, confirmed by the Department of Imprisonment Places May 9, 2001 Instruction No.63 in the Part on Prohibition of Receiving Food Parcels as unconformable with Article 64 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 19 of the Official Language Law and the Cabinet of Ministers RegultionAugust 22, 2000 Regulations No.295 "Regulations on Spelling and Identification of Names and Surnames" with Articles 96 and 116 of the Satversme
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare that Article 19 of the State Language Law complies with the Articles 96 and 116 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution).
2. To declare that the Cabinet of Ministers August 22, 2000 Regulations No. 295 in the section on approximation of the reproduced and entered into the Republic of Latvia passports personal names, if the person does not require it as unconformable with Article 96 and 116 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution).
3. To declare Item 6 of the Cabinet of Ministers October 24, 1995 Regulations No.310 and Item 3.8 of the November 10, 1994 ”Instruction on the Republic of Latvia Citizen Passports” confirmed in the Ruling by the Director of the Citizenship and Immigration Department of the Ministry of the Interior as unconformable with Articles 96 and 116 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution) and null and void from July 1, 2002.
On Compliance of Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of 18 March 1999 No. 128 "On the State Joint Stock Company " Diplomatic Service Agency"" (in the Part on Incorporation of Property Investment - the Real Estate at No. 6 Mārstaļu Street in Riga - into the Equity Capital of the Diplomatic Service Agency and its Registration into the Land Register) with Section 19 of Law "On Protection of Cultural Monuments" and Section 9 of Law "On Objects of Education, Culture and Science of State Significance and National Sports Centres".
Constitutional Court decided to declare that March 18, 1999 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 128 ”On the State Stock Company ”Diplomatic Service Agency”” (in the part on incorporation of the property investment – the real estate at No.6 Mārstaļu street in Riga – into fixed assets of the Diplomatic Service Agency and its registration with the Land Book) as being in compliance with Article 19 of the Law ”On the Protection of Cultural Monuments” and Article 9 of the Law ”On the Objects of Education, Culture and Science of State Significance and National Sport centres”.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions (in the Part on Length of Insurance of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons whose Permanent Place of Residence till January 1, 1991 has Been the Republic of Latvia) of Law On State Pensions with Articles 89, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as with Article 14 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the November 4, 195om and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention
Constitutional Court decided to declare Paragraph 1 (in the part on length of insurance of foreign citizens and stateless persons whose permanent place of residence till January 1, 1991 has been the Republic of Latvia) of Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions” as being in compliance with Articles 89, 91 and 109 of the Satversme (Constitution) as well as with Article 14 of the November 4, 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention.
On Compliance of Law On Regulators of Public Utilities with Article 1, Article 2 and Article 58 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 1 of Transitional Provisions of Law On Social Insurance with Articles 1 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Articles 9 and 11 (the first Part) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the November 4, 195
Constitutional Court decided to declare Item 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ” On the State Social Insurance” as unconformable with Article 109 of the Satversme and from the day of publishing the Judgement as null and void with regard to those persons who shall be obligatory covered by social insurance and who pay the social insurance premiums by other person’s mediation or for whom other persons pay the premiums.
On Compliance of Para1.1 of the July 6, 1999 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No.249 "Amendments to 6 October 1998 Regulations No.388 on the Procedure of Trade in Markets, Fairs, Street Markets and Travelling Shops" with Section 4(2) and Para 1 of Section 32(1) of Law "On Entrepreneur Activity", as well as with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Paragraph 4 of "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade" (GATT, 1947), Section 14 of the Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers" and the Section 3(2) of the Law "On the Free Trade Agreement among the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Trade with Agricultural Products"
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers March 18, 1999 RegulationsNo.128 "On the State Stock Company "The Agency of the Diplomatic Service""– Namely, its Part on Incorporation of the State- Owned Apartment House at No.57 Elizabetes Street in the Equity Capital of the Stock Company "The Agency of the Diplomatic Service" – with the First Sentence of Para 2, Para 3 and Para 13 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On the Privatization of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses"
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers March 18, 1999 Regulations No.128 ”On the State Stock Company ”The Agency of the Diplomatic Service”” concerning confirmation of the state property investment- i.e. concerning the real estate at No.57 Elizabetes Street, Riga- as the equity capital of the State Stock Company ”The Agency of the Diplomatic Service” as unconformable both with Article 74 of the Law ”On the Privatisation of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses ” and Item 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
2. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers November 23, 1995 Regulations No.717 ” On the Share Capital of the State Stock Company ”Rosme”” concerning incorporation of the state property investment-i.e. concerning the real estate at No.57 Elizabetes Street, Riga- in the equity capital of the State Stock Company ”Rosme” as not being in compliance both with Article 74 of the Law ”On the Privatisation of State and Local Government Apartment Houses” and Item 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
3. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers August 14, 1996 Regulations No. 334 ”On the State Stock Company ”Rosme”” concerning confirmation of the state property investment – i.e. concerning the real estate at No.57 Elizabetes Street, Riga – as the equity capital of the State Stock Company ”Rosme” and its registration in the Land Book on the name of the State Stock Company ”Rosme” as unconformable with both- Article 74 of the Law ”On the Privatisation of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses” and Item 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of the Prime Minister’s February 15, 2000 Decree No.51 "On Initiating a Disciplinary Case against the Director of the State Administrative Office (Chancellery) A.Vītols" with Section 32 of the Cabinet of Ministers Structure Law, Section 1 (Parts Three and Four) and Section 58(1) of Law On the State Civil Service
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare that Prime Minister’s February 15, 2000 Decree No.51 on initiating a disciplinary case against the Director of the State Administrative Office and his removal from office was a motion and is an integral part of the Cabinet of Ministers February 15, 2000 Protocol Decision (protocol No.8, section 1) ”On the Director of the State Administrative Office”.
2. To declare that the Protocol Decision ”On the Director of the State Administrative Office”(No.8, section 1) of the Cabinet of Ministers meeting complies with Article 32 of the Cabinet of Ministers Structure Law, the third and fourth parts of Article 1, Article 29 and the first part of Article 58 of the Law ”On the State Civil Service”.
On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 89 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic o Latvia, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Combined case: 2000-03-01
On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law and Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 9 of the Law on Electing City Council and County Council with Articles 89 and 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Constitutional Court decided to declare that Items 5 and 6 of Article 5 of the Saeima Election Law and Items 5 and 6 of Article 9 of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural Council Election Law comply with Articles 89 and 101 of the Satversme, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3 of the First Protocol of this Convention as well as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On Compliance of Decree of 12 August 1999 by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 383 "On Liquidation of Riga Aviation University as an Institution of Higher Education Founded by the State " with Para 2 of Section 4(2) and Section 7(1) of Law on Institutions of Higher Education and Section 15.1 of Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers"
Combined case: 2000-01-04
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers August 12, 1999 Decree No.384 "On Reorganization of the Latvian University and the Latvian Medicine Academy" and the Cabinet of Ministers August 12, 1999 Decree No.383 "On Liquidation of the Riga Aviation University as the Higher Educational Institution Founded by the State" with Law on Institutions of Higher Education and Section 15.1 of the Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers"
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers August 12, 1999 Decree No.384 ”On Reorganization of the Latvian University and the Latvian Medicine Academy ” and the Cabinet of Ministers August 12, 1999 Decree No. 383 ”On Liquidation of the Riga Aviation University as the Higher Educational Institution Founded by the State” as conformable with the Higher School Law and Article 15¹ of the Cabinet of Ministers Structure Law.
On Compliance of Para 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers November 30, 1999 Resolution (Protocol 67, Paragraph 38) "On Protection of Foreign Investments Earmarked for Entrepreneurial Activity of the Limited Liability Association "WINDAU" at the Bauska Co-generation Station" with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Chapter 3 of the Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers", Section 1 (1) of the Law "On Foreign Investment in the Republic of Latvia", Section 41 of the "Power Industry Law", the First and the Fourth Parts of Section 8 of the Law "On Privatisation of the State and Municipal Property" and Section 49 of the Law "On Joint Stock Companies"
Constitutional Court decided to declare Item 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers November 30, 1999 Resolution ”On Protection of Foreign Investment which Limited Liability Association ”WINDAU” Invested in the Bauska Co-generating Station” (protocol No. 67, paragraph 38) as not being in compliance with Articles 1 and 86 of the Satversme, as well as with Article 8 (Part 1, Item 17, in the wording which was
effective up to December 14, 1999) and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 4 of the Saeima Resolution on Telecommunications Tariff Council of April 29, 1999 with Articles 1 and 57 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Other Laws
Constitutional Court decided to declare Items 1 and 4 of the Saeima April 29, 1999 Resolution on the Telecommunications Tariff Council as not being in compliance with Articles 1 and 57 of the Satversme, Article 13 of the Law ”The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers”, Article 16 of the Law ”On the Structure of the Ministries” and Article 9 of the Law ”On Telecommunications” and null and void from the moment of their adoption.
On Compliance of Para 2 the Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of 11 June 1997 No. 289 "On Establishing the Bureau for Public Governance Reform" in the Part on Transferring the Administration of State Civil Service under the Supervision of the Bureau for Public Governance Reform with Article 57 and Article 58 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 13 of Law On Structure of Ministries, Section 14(2) of Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers" and Section 4(2) of Law On State Civil Service
On Compliance of the regulations of the State Stock Company "Valsts nekustamā īpašuma aģentūra" "On the Procedure by which Free Apartments in Dwelling Houses under the Management of the Real Estate Agency shall Be Rented" with Sections 2, 10 and 11 of the Law "On Housing Support Granted by the State and Local Governments", Section 40 of the Law "On Residential Tenancy" and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On the Privatisation of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses"
Constitutional Court decided to declare the state stock company ”The Real Estate Agency” Regulations ”On the Procedure of Renting Free Apartments in the Dwelling Houses under the Management of the Real Estate Agency”, certified by the April 29, 1997 Agency Board decision as not being in compliance with the Law ”The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers”, as well as with Articles 2,10 and 11 of the Law ”On Housing Support Granted by the State and Local Government”, Article 40 of the Law ”On Rent of the Dwelling Space”, item 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On the Privatisation of State and Local Governments Apartment Houses”” and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 21 January, 1997 No.46 "On Management Contracts" with Freedom of Information Law of 20 November 1998
Constitutional Court decided to declare item 11 in the part on confidentiality of the Cabinet of Ministers January 21, 1997 Regulations No.46 as not being in compliance with Articles 100 and 116 of the Satversme and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of Paragraph 29 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 20 May, 1997 No.187 "The Procedure for the Repayment in Cash to Persons who were Granted Compensation Certificates (Vouchers) for the Former Landed Property in Rural Areas" with Articles 105 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as with Section 1 (2), Para 3 of Section 12 (2) of the Law "On Land Privatization in Rural Regions" and Section 9 of the Law "On the Determination of the Status of Politically Repressed Persons Suffered during the Communist and Nazi Regimes"
Constitutional Court decided to declare paragraph 29 – as regards persons, mentioned in the second part of Article 12 of the July 9, 1992 Law ”On the Land Privatization in Rural Regions”, if they have the status of politically repressed persons - of the May 20, 1997 Regulations No. 187 by the Cabinet of Ministers ”The Procedure for the Repayment in Cash to Persons who were Granted Compensation Certificates (Vouchers) for the Former Landed Property in Rural Areas” as unconformable with Article 9 of the April 12, 1995 Law ”On the Determination of the Status of Politically Repressed Persons Suffered During the Communist and Nazi Regimes” and null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of the Regulations by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia of August 4, 1998 No.294 "On the Procedure of Compensation for the Unrealised Forecasted Real Estate Tax to Self – Governments" with Para 2 Section 14 (1) of the Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers" and Para 9 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On the Equalisation of Local Government Finances"
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia August 4, 1998 Regulations No. 294 ”On the Procedure of Compensation for Unrealised Forecasted for 1998 Real Estate Tax to Self-governments” as not being in compliance with the first part (paragraph 2) and the second part of Article 14 of the Law ”The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers” and Item 9 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ” On the Equalisation Of Local Government Finances” and null and void from the moment of their adoption.
On Compliance of the Norm Established in Section 4 (2) of the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Benefits” by the Law adopted by the Saeima on 19 June 1998 "Amendments to the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Benefits”” with Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court decided to declare the second part of Article 4 of the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Benefits” that has been expressed in a new wording in Article 8 of the Saeima June 19, 1998 Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Benefits”” as not being in compliance with Article 66 of the Satversme and null and void from the moment of the law ”On the State Budget for 1999” taking effect, if the State Budget for 1999 does not envisage resources for covering the payment of maternity benefits to the persons indicated in the second part of Article 4 of the Law ”On Maternity and Sickness Insurance”.
On Compliance of the Resolution by the Saeima of 30 April, 1998 on the Vote of Confidence for the Cabinet of Ministers with the Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers" and Rules of Procedure of the Saeima
Constitutional Court decided to declare that the April 30, 1998 Resolution by the Saeima on giving the vote of confidence to the Cabinet of Ministers has been adopted not taking into consideration several procedural norms,included in Article 6 of the law ”The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers” and Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, however on its merit it is in compliance with Article 59 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers 23.April, 1996 Resolution No.148 "On the Procedure by which the Property is Restituted or its Value is Compensated to the Persons, whose Administrative Deportation from the Territory of the Latvian SSR or from the Part of the Territory of the Latvian SSR that Has Been Incorporated into the RSFSR is Recognised Unfounded" and the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution of 4 November, 1997 No.367 "Amendments to Regulations No.148 of April 23, 1996 "The Procedure by which the Property or its Value is Compensated to the Persons, whose Administrative Deportation from the Latvian SSR is Recognised Unfounded" with the Law "On the Determination of the Status of Politically Repressed Persons Suffered during the Communist and Nazi Regimes" and Other Laws
Constitutional Court decided to declare the Cabinet of Ministers 23 April, 1996 Resolution No. 148 ”On the Procedure by which the Property is Restituted or its Value is Compensated to the Persons, whose Administrative Deportation from the Territory of the Latvian SSR or from the Part of the Territory of the Latvian SSR that has Been Incorporated into the RSFSR is Recognised Unfounded” and the Cabinet of Ministers 4 November, 1997 Resolution No. 367 ” Amendments to Resolution No. 148 of April 23, 1996 ” The Procedure by which the Property is Restituted or its Value is Compensated to the Persons, whose Administrative Deportation from the Latvian SSR is Recognised Unfounded” as not being in compliance with the second part of Article 14 of the law ” On the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers”, with Article 9 of the law ”On the Procedure by which Laws and Other Acts Adopted by the Saeima, State President and the Cabinet are Promulgated, Published, Take Effect and Being Valid”, with the first part of Article 10 of the law ”On the Determination of the Status of Politically Repressed Persons Suffered during the Communist and Nazi Regimes” and the first part of Article 15 of the law ”On Privatisation Certificates” and null and void from the moment of their adoption.
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Decision by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia of 15 September 1992 "On the Procedure of Entering into Force of the Law On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs " (in the Wording of the law of 19 December 1996) with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Constitutional Court decided to declare the second and the fourth part of Paragraph 2 of the Supreme Council 15 September, 1992 Resolution ” On the Procedure by which the Republic of Latvia Law ”On Eminent Domain ” Takes Effect”” as being in compliance with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the November 4, 1950 European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
On Compliance of the Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers of 16 September 1997 No. 322 "Regulations on Transferring Part of real Estate Tax Revenue into the Local Government Equalisation Fund in 1997" with the Satversme, Law On Local Governments, Law On Budget and Financial Management and Law On Local Government Budgets
On Compliance of the Regulation by the Cabinet of Ministers of 16 September 1997 No. 322 "Regulations on Transferring Part of Real Estate Tax Revenue into the Local Government Equalisation Fund in 1997" with Law On Budget and Financial Management
Constitutional Court decided:
1. Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 322 of September 16, 1997 ” Regulations on the Payment of Part of Property Tax Income into the Municipal Finance Equalisation Fund in 1997” are in compliance with the first part of Article 41 and the first part of Article 42.
2. Paragraph 6 of Regulations No. 322 of the Cabinet of Ministers of September 16, 1997 ” Regulations on the Payment of Part of Property Tax Income into the Municipal Finance Equalisation Fund in 1997 ” is at variance with Articles 14 (part 2) and 15 of the law ” The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers” and Article 5 (part 2) of the law ”On Property Tax” and is declared null and void from the moment of its adoption.
On Compliance of the Joint Interpretation by the Ministry of Finance (No.047/475 Certified on April 30,1993) and by the Ministry of Economic Reforms (No.34–1.1.–187, Certified on May 4,1993) "On Revaluation of Fixed Assets by Enterprise and Entrepreneur Company Accountancy"" and Interpretation by the Ministry of Economy No.3–31.1–231 of December 28, 1993 "On the Procedure of Application of the Joint Interpretation by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Reforms "On Revaluation of Fixed Assets by Enterprise and Entrepreneur Company Accountancy"" with the law "On the Procedure of Privatisation of Objects (Enterprises) of the State and Municipal Property" as well as Other Laws
Constitutional Court decided to declare part of the Joint Interpretation ” On Revaluation of Fixed Assets by Enterprise and Entrepreneur Company Accountancy”, certified by the Ministry of Finance on April 30, 1993 (No. 047/475 and by Ministry of Economic Reforms on May 4, 1993 (No.34-1.1-187) referring to inclusion of investments into the buy-out payment during the process of privatisation as well as Interpretation by the Ministry of Economy No.3-31.1-231 of December 28, 1993 ”On the Procedure of Application of the Joint Interpretation by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Reforms ” On Revaluation of Fixed Assets by Enterprise and Entrepreneur Company Accountancy”” as not being in compliance with Article 64 of the Satversme and null and void from the moment of the announcement of the Judgment.
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation 4 June 1996 No. 200 "The Procedure for Granting Paid Leave to Pedagogues" with Labour Law Code and Law "The Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers"
On Compliance of Paragraph 3 of Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 118 of April 2,1997 ”Amendments to Regulations No.275 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 30 July, 1996 on the Procedure for Submitting Declarations of Income by State Officials with Sections 23 and 24 of Law On Prevention of Corruption
Constitutional Court decided:
to declare Paragraph 3 of Regulations No.118 of 2 April, 1997 “Amendments to Regulations No. 275 by the Cabinet of Ministers of 30 July, 1996 on the Procedure for Submitting Declarations of Income by State Officials” as not being in compliance with Articles 23, 24 and 29 of the Corruption Prevention Law and null and void from the moment of the announcement of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.23 of January 10, 1997 “Amendments to the Law on Regulating Business Activity in the Energy Sector” (Adopted in Compliance with the Procedure Set by Article 81 of the Satversme) to Article 81 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and compliance of Regulations No.54 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 14 March, 1995 “On Purchase Prices of Electrical Energy Generated in the Republic of Latvia” with the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and to Law “On Regulating Business Activity in the Energy Sector”, as well as with Other Laws
Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Regulations No.23 of January 10, 1997, ”Amendments to the Law “On Regulating Business Activity in the Energy Sector” ” as not corresponding to Article 81 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and null and void from the time of announcement of the Judgment.
2. To declare Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.54 of March 14, 1995 “On Purchase Prices of Electrical Energy Produced in the Republic of Latvia” as not being in conformity with Article 14 of the law “On the Structure of the Cabinet of Ministers” and null and void from October 11, 1995.