A judgment in the case on examination procedure for budgetary requests of the Chancellery of the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-06-01 “On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of the Law on Budget and Financial Management, Section 44 (2) of the Law on the State Audit Office and Section 19 (2) of the Ombudsman Law with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia”.
The case was initiated in January of this year based on an application of the State Audit Office, wherein it was indicated that the contested norms infringe financial and functional independence of the above mentioned independent institutions. The contested norms provide that budgetary requests of the Chancellery of the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman shall not be amended, up to the submission of the draft budget law to the Cabinet, without the consent of the submitter of the request. The Applicant indicates that such procedure does not comply with the principle of separation of powers because the government can thus influence budget of independent institutions.
The Constitutional Court indicated in the judgment that the principle of separation of powers does not envisage that budgetary requests of constitutional institutions could be assessed and amended solely by the legislator. Independence of constitutional institutions does not mean an absolute autonomy. State power is unified; its branches mutually interact and function as mutually independent institutions.
The Constitutional Court assessed the contested norms in conjunction with other norms of the Law on budget and finance management regulating examination of draft State budget by the Cabinet of Ministers. The Court concluded the following: in order to ensure independence of constitutional institutions and the Ombudsman office, as well as observance of the principle of separation of powers, these institutions must be heard by the Cabinet of Ministers; however, the Cabinet of Ministers must substantiate its decisions. If the Cabinet of Ministers amends budgetary requests of constitutional institutions and the Ombudsman and the above mentioned institutions object to it, then the government must inform the legislator on such objections. Consequently, the Court concluded that the executive power, namely, the Cabinet of Ministers and the Saeima have the duty to hear the opinion the constitutional institutions and the Ombudsman office.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the effective regulatory framework is evidently imperfect because the regulatory framework fails to establish procedure that would ensure the right of the Chancellery of the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman to be heard by the Cabinet of Ministers regarding examination of their budgetary requests. In the result of it, the aim of the contested norms is not ensured.
The Court took into account the fact that prevention of the flaws would take time. Therefore the Court established the term of six months, within which the legislator must eliminate the above mentioned flaws. The Court found the contested norms, in conjunction with Section 20 of the Law on Budget and Financial Management insofar as it does not establish the right of the Chancellery of the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman to be heard by the Cabinet of Minister regarding questions related to their budgetary requests, as non-compliant with Article 1, Article 83 and Article 87 of the Satversme and declares them as null and void as from 1 June 2011.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. It shall come into force on the date of publishing it in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2010-06-01