A case on the terms of validity of personal identification documents has been initiated
The Second Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 16 (1) (4) of the Personal Identification Documents Law with the First and the Second Sentence of Article 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The contested norm provides that an identity card, passport or return identification document shall be invalid for use if the legal status of a person has changed. However, Article 98 of the Satversme provides among the rest things that everyone has the right to freely depart from Latvia and everyone having a Latvian passport shall have the right to freely return to Latvia.
The application before the Constitutional Court was lodged by the Administrative Regional Court [Administratīvā apgabaltiesa]. It was examining a case having regard to a complaint of a person who was granted Latvian citizenship in accordance with the procedure of naturalization. After having adopted the decision to grant the person citizenship, the passport of a non-citizen was no more valid. Meanwhile the person was not able to leave the State for business needs. Moreover, the person was not aware, when travelling, of having already been granted citizenship.
The Administrative Regional Court indicates that the maximum term of the naturalization process constitutes one year, and a person cannot precisely foresee the final date of the procedure. Consequently, a person cannot know the date when his or her passport is no more valid for travelling. The Administrative Regional Court holds that it is not reasonable to require a person to restrict his or her private of business life for the period of one year after submitting a naturalization application by quitting going abroad.
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 22 November 2010, a reply on the fact of the case and legal justification thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 17 February 2011 (the date of examination of the case is determined after the case is prepared for examination).
Linked case: 2010-64-01