Another case on provisions regarding compensation for the loss of ability to work has been initiated
The First Panel of the Constitutional Court has initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 20 (9) (1) 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”.
Article 1 of the Satversme (Constitution) provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic. Article 91 of the Satversme guarantees equality of persons before the law and the courts, whilst Article 105 of the Satversme protect property right of persons, and Article 109 of the Satversme provides that everyone has the right to social security in old age, for work disability, for unemployment and in other cases as provided by law.
The contested norm provides that compensation to a person who has been granted long-service pension or old age pension in case of the loss of ability to work shall be disbursed in accordance with the following procedure: “if the amount of pension granted does not exceed the amount of compensation for the loss of ability to work, the insured persons shall be disbursed the difference of the amount of compensation for the loss of ability to work and that of the long-service or old age pensions”. The norm came into force on 1 July 2009.
The applicant indicates that some years ago he was diagnosed an occupational disease and a partial loss of ability to work. Because of the state of health, he had to abandon the work. In 2009, he was granted an old age pension, the amount of which was less than the compensation for the loss of ability to work; therefore he receives full old age pensions, whilst the compensation for the loss of ability to work is disbursed only partially, namely, it only covers the difference of the old age pensions and the compensation. The applicant holds that such procedure infringes several principles of a law-governed State, including the principle of legal security and the principle of proportionality. He also indicates that persons who receive compensation for the loss of ability to work are a special social group because they have worked in conditions that are harmful to their health, and they have lost the ability to work due to an occupational disease rather than the age. The applicant counted on receiving compensation for the loss of ability to work because he has quitted the work in the result of the occupational disease, which was diagnosed before his retirement age; therefore he could not earn sufficient pension.
Therefore the applicant holds that the contested norm not only breaches legal pimples but also infringes his fundamental rights established in Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme.
The Saeima was asked to provide, before 16 June 2010, a reply on factual circumstances of the case and legal justification thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 16 September 2010.
Linked case: 2010-27-01