A case on the procedures for assessment of budgetary requests of independent institutions
On 14 September 2011, the Second Panel of the Constitutional Court examined the case “On Compliance of Section 16.2 (4) and 19 (5) of the Law “On Budget and Financial Management” with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Article 1 of the Satversme provides that Latvia is an independent democratic State, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme protect independence of judicial institutions and the State Audit Office respectively.
The contested norms establish the procedure for assessment of the budgetary requests of the chancellery of the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office, the National Council of Electronic mass media and the Office of the Ombudsman, in respect to which the Cabinet of Ministers, when deciding on the total maximum confirmed amount of State budget expenses permitted in respect to a particular institution, shall have the duty to hear an opinion of the respective institution. However, budgetary requests of the institutions can be amended without the consent of the submitter of the request in case if they exceed the total maximum amount of State budget expenses permitted and confirmed by the Cabinet of Ministers.
The applicant – the State Audit Office Council holds that such financial pressure and influencing of the amount of financing necessary for functioning of independent institutions cause threat to independence of the institutions and effective implementation of their functions. Veritable independence of the above mentioned independent institutions and implementation of the principle of separation of powers can be ensured only if budgetary requests of independent institutions are assessed by the legislator, and observance of all legal principles characteristic to a democratic state as established in the Satversme is ensured during the assessment procedure.
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 14 November 2011, a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 14 February 2012.
In 2010, the Saeima has already adjudicated a case (Judgment of 25 November 2010 in the case No. 2010-06-01), wherein, among the rest, respective norms of the Law “On Budget and Financial Management” regulating procedures of confirmation of budgetary requests of independent institutions were contested.
Linked case: 2011-18-01