A case on amendments in the Law „On State Social Insurance” has been initiated
The First Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 5 (4) and Section 21 (2) (1) of the Law “On State Social Insurance” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 1 of the Satversme provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic; whilst Article 109 of the Satversme ensures that everyone has the right to social security in old age, for work disability, for unemployment and in other cases as provided by law.
The contested norm read:
- A person is socially insured against accidents at work, unemployment, disability, maternity, illness and parenthood, and he or she must make mandatory contributions (regarding thereof) from the day when such person has acquired the status referred to in Paragraph one of this Section, except for the status of a self-employed person. A person is socially insured if social insurance contributions have actually been made.
- If the employer has failed to make social insurance payments specified in this Law, a person, in respect to whom the employee had to make payments and who has reached the age fiving the right to receive State old-age pension, shall have the right to make social insurance payments for pension insurance. The Cabinet of Ministers shall regulate provisions, terms and procedure, according to which a person shall make social insurance payments for pension insurance.
The Applicants, members of the 10th Saeima [Parliament] indicate that the contested norms deny persons the right to social security, the right to social insurance included. In legal relations between the State and an employer, the State is committed to guarantee that taxpayers observe all laws. The contested norms allow occurring of a situation when an employer can avoid making social payments on unlawful basis, which threatens the rights of employees; namely, the rights of employees cannot be associated with the fact whether another person, namely, the employer, has or has not duly fulfilled the stipulated obligations.
Linked case: 2011-03-01