A judgment in the case on the right of the State Audit Office [Valsts kontrole] to get acquainted with medicinal documentation has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-51-03 “On Compliance of Section 10 (5) (6) of the Law on the Rights of Patients, insofar as It does not Provide the State Audit Office the Right to Request Information on a Patient Necessary for Fulfilling Stipulated Functions of the Office, with Article 1, Article 87 and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 1 of the Satversme provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic, whilst Article 87 and 88 of the Satversme regulate actions of the State Audit Office.
The contested norm provides a list of those persons and institutions that do have the right to receive, from a medical institution, information on a patient. The State Audit Office is not mentioned in this norm. The applicant, namely, the Council of the State Audit Office holds that the contested norm prohibits the State Audit Office to obtain full information on a patient and thus prohibits it verifying lawfulness, correctness and efficiency of use of budget resources spent for treatment of patients, refund of medical products and other medical expenses.
The Constitutional Court acknowledged that the aim of the contested norm is protection of patients’ data. Article 96 of the Satversme and a range of international documents establish several data protection principles in this respect. Principles of protection of personal data are based on the necessity to ensure that information obtained for medical purposes would primarily be used only for aims related with health protection sphere.
The Court concluded that at present, after failing to obtain information on case-records of particular patients and health care services provided for them, the State Audit Office can still obtain sufficient information on lawfulness, expediency and effectiveness of use of budget resources by health care institutions. The Court also indicated that the legislator has the freedom of action to adopt such legislator framework that would provide for the right of the State Audit Office to receive all audit-wise necessary information on a patient by mediation of other State administration institutions, as well as the legislator has the right to introduce such amendments into legal acts that would improve cooperation possibilities between the State Audit Office and other institutions.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court recognized the contested norm as compliant with Article 1, Article 87 and Article 88 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2010-51-03