A case initiated with respect to a norm that did not envisage subjecting employees with group I or II disabilities to disability insurance
On 17 December 2019, the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Section 6 (2) of the law “On State Social Insurance” (here and hereafter – in the wording that was in force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002)
“Employees who have attained the age that gives the right to receive the State old-age pension and persons with group I and II disabilities shall be subject to pension insurance, maternity and sickness insurance, as well as occupational accident insurance.”
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – the Satversme): “All human beings in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.”
Article 109 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to social security in old age, for work disability, for unemployment and in other cases as provided by law.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis on an application submitted by the Supreme Court (hereafter – the Applicant). The Supreme Court is hearing an administrative case, which has been initiated with respect to an application requesting issuing a favourable administrative act, by which the applicant had requested that a disability pension to were granted to him. Section 6 (2) of the law “On State Social Insurance” is said to be applicable in this case since it determines whether the applicant in the administrative case will be granted the right to a disability pension.
In accordance with Article 109 of the Satversme, the State’s actions, in introducing the disability pension, should comply with general legal principles; inter alia, the principle of legal equality. The Applicant holds that the legislator, in adopting Section 6 (2) of the law “On State Social Insurance”, did not comply with this principle. I.e., the legislator had adopted, without grounds, such legal regulation, in accordance with which persons with group I or II disabilities could not be subject to insurance for disability pension and, consequently, obtain the right to a disability pension. Hence, the contested norm is said to be incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 17 February 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 18 May 2020. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after it has been prepared.
Linked case: 2019-36-01