A judgment in the case on reimbursement of compensation for the loss of ability to work has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-17-01 “On Compliance of Section 20 Paragraph of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of Section 14 of the Same Law and Section 20 Paragraph 9 of the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases “(Wording of the Law from 25 November 2004 to 16 June 2009) and Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Law “Amendments to the Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance in Respect of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Court assessed the following issues:
- remuneration for the loss of ability to work (disablement compensation) shall not be disbursed in case if the level of the loss of ability to work constitutes 10 – 24 percent,
- disablement compensation shall not be disbursed in case if the person receives pension, the amount of which exceeds the amount of disablement compensation,
- disablement compensation shall be disbursed at the amount that exceeds the amount of pension;
- disablement compensation for persons who received old age pension was disbursed at the amount of 80 percent (before amendments of the law adopted on 16 June 2009);
- disablement compensation shall not be disbursed during the period when the person receives unemployment benefit;
- compensation for loss of breadwinner shall not be disbursed during the period when the person receives unemployment benefit.
Several cases initiated according to constitutional complaints of natural persons and an application of 21 members of the 9th Saeima (Parliament) were merged one case considered herein.
The Court concluded that social security provided for a person in case of occupational disease or accident at work includes not only disablement compensation (disbursement of money) but also medical, professional rehabilitation and requalification services. The cut of disablement compensation or ceasing of disbursement thereof to a person who has had an accident at work or was diagnosed an occupational disease does not mean per se that the person in such a case of social risk has been denied his or her fundamental right to social security.
The Constitutional Court has indicated that the requirement to provide social security in the form of a compensation to be disbursed does not directly follow from Article 109 of the Satversme.
As to receipt of several social payments (like, simultaneous receipt of disablement compensation and unemployment benefit), the Court drew attention to the principle of social security system that provides that one and the same unearned labour income shall not be compensated twice. Disablement compensation, unemployment benefit, compensation for loss of a breadwinner, old age pension or long service pension compensates the unearned labour incomes. The Satversme does not commit the State to recurrent compensation of lost incomes.
In the judgment, the Court has also assessed whether legal security of the applicants has or has not been infringed. The Court ruled that taking into account the regulatory framework effective from 16 June 2009 they had the right to count on receipt of several social payments at the same time. The Court established, however, that the Law provided for a reasonable transitional period, namely, person who were granted disablement compensation for the loss of the ability to work at the amount of 10 – 24 percent and persons who received pension along with disablement compensation continued receiving these two kinds of disbursements for the entire period established in the particular administrative act (in each individual case).
However, as to simultaneous receipt of disablement compensation or compensation for loss of breadwinner and unemployment benefit, the Court indicated that benefit gained by the society from introduction of the contested norm is greater that the restriction to the right of a person. It is in the interests of the society to establish such regulation that would ensure that disbursement from funds of social assistance would be allocated only to those persons who indeed need it. Moreover, in the case under review, the transitional period of more than half a year was established in the law. Therefore the Court recognizes the above mentioned restriction as proportional.
Consequently, the Court recognized that the contested norms do comply with the Satversme.
The judgment of the Court is final and not subject to appeal. The judgment shall come into force on the date of publishing it in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2010-17-01