A case initiated with respect to prohibition to issue a security guard certificate to a person, who has been diagnosed with addiction to alcohol
On 20 May 2020, the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “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”.
The Contested Norm
Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law provides that it is prohibited to issue the security guard certificate to a person, who has been diagnosed with mental disorders, addiction to alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic, or toxic substances, or behavioural disorders.
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – the Satversme): “Everyone has the right to freely choose their employment and workplace according to their abilities and qualifications.”
The case was initiated on the basis of an application by the Administrative Regional Court. The applicant is examining an administrative case, which had been initiated on the basis of an application by a natural person regarding issuance of a favourable administrative act, by which the security guard certificate would be issued to this person.
The applicant notes that the said person had been diagnosed with addiction to alcohol, therefore, on the basis of the contested norm, the institutions had refused to issue the security guard certificate to the person. The first instance court, on the basis of the contested norm, had dismissed the person’s application requesting issuing of a favourable administrative act. The applicant had established that the particular person had been in remission from the addiction syndrome for several years; however, notwithstanding this, the contested norm establishes absolute prohibition to issue the security guard certificate.
The applicant holds that the absolute prohibition envisaged in the contested norm restricts a person’s right to freely choose one’s employment, established in the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme. The restriction on the fundamental rights is said to be established by a legal norm adopted in the procedure set out in regulatory enactments and to have a legitimate aim. However, it is maintained that this restriction on fundamental rights is incompatible with the principle of proportionality.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the institution, which issued the contested act, – the Saeima – to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 20 July 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 20 October 2020. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after it has been prepared.
Open in PDF: 2020-29-01_PR_par_ierosinasanu_ENG
Linked case: 2020-29-01