A case on provisions regulating financing of residentship education has been initiated
The First Panel of the Constitutional Court has initiated a case “On Compliance of Sub-Section 3.1 5 and Section 11 of 13 March 2001 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 120 “Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors” and Section 11 of 25 August 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 972 “Regulation on Funding of Residentship Education and Posting of Resident Doctors” with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 91 of the Satversme guarantees equality before the law and the courts; whilst Article 106 of the Satversme establishes the right of every person to freely choose their employment and workplace according to their abilities and qualifications.
The Contested Norms provide that a resident doctor whose education expenses have been covered from the State budget shall be committed to work in certain medical institutions for at least three years after terminating residentship education. However, if the person fails to work in certain medical intuitions for at least three years after terminating residentship education or fails to successfully master education programme, he or she shall have the duty to repay expenses related to residentship education (State budget resources spent for education of a resident doctor).
The applicant, the Administrative District Court indicates that the contested norms establish, without objective and reasonable grounds, a different attitude towards resident doctors if compared to students of other professions whose education is covered by State budget resources and who do not have the duty to work in certain workplaces or to disburse education expenses after having terminated education.
The Cabinet of Ministers was asked to provide, before 13 September 2011, a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 13 December 2011.
Linked case: 2011-14-03