A judgment in the case on conditions for granting scholarships has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-57-03 “On Compliance of Section 1.1 of 2 June 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 511 “Amendments to 24 August 2004 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 740 “Regulations regarding Scholarships”” with Article 91 and 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Pursuant to Article 91 of the Satversme, every person in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Article 112 of the Satversme establishes that everyone shall have the right to education.
Para 1.1 of 2 June 2009 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 511 “Amendments to 24 August 2004 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 740 “Regulations regarding Scholarships”” (hereinafter – the Contested Norm) regulates conditions for granting scholarships by providing that priority, when granting scholarships, shall be given to less protected individuals, like, disabled persons, orphans, low-income persons, students with children and others. However, the applicants, Mr. Edgars Ābols and Mr. Artūrs Pušmucāns held that the aim of scholarships is motivation and supporting of gifted students rather than social assistance. The Cabinet of Ministers regulations were adopted based on the Law on Higher Education Institutions and the Education Law. However, regulations regarding priorities when granting scholarships have been amended several times, though the regulatory frameworks of the above mentioned laws remained unchanged.
The Constitutional Court concluded that support for studies at a higher education institution has two aims. Namely, the Law facilitates academic honours by providing that only successful students shall have the right to study using State budget resources. However, the Contested Norm provides support for persons in lower social or economic situation.
The Court indicated that the Cabinet of Ministers, when deciding on the procedure for granting scholarships, has the duty to take into account the initial preconditions for studies paid by State budget resources as established by the legislator. This is particularly applicable to a situation when not all students, whose studies are paid by the State budget, receive scholarship.
The Constitutional Court concluded that, unless the legislator has not established another group of persons having the right to apply for scholarship, it cannot be permitted that the Cabinet of Ministers amends the procedure for granting scholarships insofar that the new conditions differ from criteria established for having the right to cover study fee by State budget resources.
Consequently, the Court recognized the Contested Norm as non-compliant with Article 64 of the Satversme (The Saeima, and also the people, have the right to legislate, in accordance with the procedures, and to the extent, provided for by this Constitution.).
The Judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2010-57-03