A case on the cut of wage of judges and the maximum amount of remuneration has been initiated
The First Panel of the Constitutional Court has initiated a case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Para 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Judicial Power” insofar as It Regulates Remuneration of Judges with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic. Article 83 of the Satversme establishes that judges shall be independent and subject only to the law, whilst Article 107 of the Satversme guarantees the right to receive, for work done, commensurate remuneration.
The Contested norm provides: “From 1 January 2010 to 21 December 2011 remuneration of judges and judges of the Land Registry Offices shall be 73 percent from the remuneration established in accordance with Para 7 and Para 17 of the Transitional Provisions of this Law, which shall not exceed monthly wage of the Prime Minister established in accordance with the Law on Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Institutions.”
The applicants – 183 judges – indicate in their applications that the contested norm does not comply with the principle of legal security, the principle of legal stability, the principle of legal equality, and the principle of independence of the judiciary. They indicate that termination of judges’ remuneration reform has already been postponed for several times and at the period when the average wage in public administration increased, remuneration of judges were already “frozen”. The applicants hold that, when establishing remuneration for judges, it is necessary to take into account qualification requirements for the office of a judge, position restrictions and restrictions on gaining extra incomes, as well as the fact that a judge, unlike other employees of the State administration, does not have the possibility to receive bonuses for extra work or intensive work.
It should also be taken into consideration, the applicants say, that career or a judge is a long-term choice; therefore it is very important for a judge to rely that the legal regulation applicable to the office of a judge, remuneration and social guarantees would be stable and would not be amended based on the political will.
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 11 June 2010, a reply on factual circumstances of the case and legal justification thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 9 September 2010.
Linked case: 2010-24-01