A case on amendments to the system of remuneration of judges, land registry judges and public prosecutors has been initiated
The Second Panel of the Constitutional Court has initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 3 (7), Section 4 (2) and Section 16 (1), (2) and (3), insofar as they apply to judges (land registry judges) and public prosecutors, Section 4 (9), Section 6.1, Section 6.2, the First Sentence of Section 14 (1), Section 15 (7), of the Law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Self-government Authorities” and Section 8.4 of Transitional Provisions thereof, as well as Compliance Section 89.11 Paragraph 9.1 of the Law “On Judicial Power”, Para 4 and Para 10 of the Law “Amendments to the Law “On Judicial Power””, and Section 2 and Section 5 (Regarding Crossing out of Section 55 (3)), Section 6 (Regarding Crossing out of Section 57.1 (4), Section 57.2 and Section 57.5) of 16 December 2010 Law “Amendments to the Office of the Prosecutor Law) with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 1 of the Satversme provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic. Pursuant to Article 83 of the Satversme, judges shall be independent and subject only to the law. Moreover, Article 107 of the Satversme provides, among the rest, that every employed person has the right to receive, for work done, commensurate remuneration.
The contested norms introduce amendments into the remuneration system of judges, land registry judges and public prosecutors. They provide, among the rest, that the amount of monthly salary of a judge is related with the amount of salary of a high qualified lawyer employed in a State administration institution. Likewise, the contested norms establish possibilities to receive bonuses and premiums, as well as introduce several changes into social guarantees of judges and public prosecutors.
Judges and public prosecutors who submitted the application indicate, among the rest, that the contested norms breach the principle of separation of powers, that of independence of judges, as well as that of legal security. The amendments introduced into the laws have been adopted hastily, without hearing and taking into account opinion of representatives of the judicial power. The applicants express the viewpoint that the executive power cannot have the right to influence the amount of remuneration of judges and public prosecutors. Likewise, work fulfilled by a judge or a public prosecutor cannot be subject to bonuses, namely, such situation might have a considerable impact on independence guarantees of judges and public prosecutors.
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 6 July 2011, a reply on facts of the case and legal justification thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 6 October 2011.
Linked case: 2011-10-01