A case initiated with respect to determining the amount of remuneration for prosecutors
On 2 May 2017 the 4th Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “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”.
Contested Norms
Section 4(9) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities (hereinafter – Law on Remuneration): “The monthly salary for a judge shall be determined by linking it to the monthly salary of a highly qualified lawyer of a state institution of direct administration by applying a respective coefficient. The monthly salary of a prosecutor shall be determined by linking it to the monthly salary of a district (municipal) court judge by applying a respective coefficient.”
Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration: “The monthly salary of a district (municipal) court judge shall be determined by equalling it to the maximum amount of the monthly salary of the head of a legal structural unit at a state institution of direct administration (the 12th group of monthly salaries) in accordance with Annex 3 to this Law.”
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 83 of the Satversme: “Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law.”
Article 107 of the Satversme: “Every employed person has the right to receive, for work done, commensurate remuneration which shall not be less than the minimum wage established by the State, and has the right to weekly holidays and a paid annual vacation.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis of an application by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia. The applicant notes that in linking a prosecutor’s monthly salary to the monthly salary of a district (municipal) court judge, which, in turn, is linked to the monthly salary of the head of legal structural unit of a state institution of direct administration, the differences in the status, functions and responsibility of these offices have not been taken into consideration.
The guarantees established for judges in Article 83 of the Satversme are to be applied also to prosecutors, because the prosecutor’s office is an institution of judicial power. Whereas the requirement to ensure to prosecutors remuneration that would commensurate with the work they do is said to follow from Article 107 of the Satversme.
The aim of Law on Remuneration is to establish equal approach in determining remuneration to employees of state and local government institutions. The applicant holds that by a number of amendments to Law on Remuneration the actual remuneration to employees of public administration has increased, but the actual value of prosecutors’ remuneration during their term of mandate has decreased. Therefore the uniform approach to determining remuneration that existed previously in Law on Remuneration has been disrupted and the contested norms are said to be incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit by 3 July 2017 to the Constitutional Court a written reply, presenting the facts of the case and legal substantiation.
The term for preparing the case is 2 October 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: 2017-13-01-PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2017-13-01