A case initiate regarding norms of Official Language Law
On 4 January 2017 the Constitutional Court initiated 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”.
Contested Norms
Section 18(1) of Official Language Law provides that place names in the Republic of Latvia must be created and use thereof must be in the official language. Section 21(1), in turn, provides, inter alia, that this rule is applicable also to private institutions, organisations, undertakings (companies), and self-employed persons, who perform, on the basis of law or other regulatory enactments, specific public functions, if the provision of information is related to the performance of the relevant functions.
Norm of Higher Legal Force
Article 96 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to inviolability of his or her private life, home and correspondence.”
Facts of the Case
The case has been initiated on the basis of Ludmila Rjazanova’s application, which states that she had placed on the immoveable property in her ownership a sign with the number of the building, on which the name of the street had been transcribed not only in the official language, but also in foreign languages – in English and in Russian. Such signs, allegedly, violate Official Language Law, and therefore the applicant had been imposed an administrative penalty.
The applicant holds that the contested norms place disproportional restrictions upon her right to private life and inviolability of home.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit by 6 March 2017 to the Constitutional Court a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
The term for preparing the case is 4 June 2017. The Court shall decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after the case has been prepared.
Open in PDF: 2017-01-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-01-01