Law on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon Complies with the Satversme (Constitution)
Today, on April 7, the Constitutional Court has announced a judgment in the case No. 2008‑35‑01 “On Compliance of the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community with Article 101 of the Satversme (Constitution) of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 101 of the Satversme, among other things, provides that every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the State affairs.
The case was instituted in September 2008 upon a constitutional claim submitted by several individuals. They claimed that ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon infringes the principle of sovereignty (Article 2 of the Satversme) and is in breach of the rights to national referendum of the people of the Republic of Latvia (Article 68 of the Satversme). The case was examined by the Court in public hearings on 3, 4 and 10 March 2009 with participation of the representatives of both parties as well as invited persons.
The Constitutional Court has decided the following:
- The applicants submitted that the sovereignty of the people of the Republic of Latvia is infringed by the withdrawal procedure provided in the Lisbon Treaty. However, the Court established that this is not infringement of sovereignty, because the withdrawal procedure is already provided in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is binding, for Latvia. Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty provides additional guarantees in comparison to general international law, namely, the State has the right withdraw from the EU even if the agreement with other EU Member States has not been reached;
- The applicants mistakenly considered that the withdrawal procedure from the EU excludes Latvia from participating in negotiations on conditions for withdrawal. It solely provides that Latvian representatives shall not participate in negotiations on the side of the European Union. However Latvia will preserve its rights as an independent contracting party;
- The provisions on withdrawal provide that agreements concluded between the State and the EU are not binding to the respective State from the date when the withdrawal agreement becomes effective or, failing that, two years after the notification of withdrawal. The two-year period is not a restriction per se for Latvia to withdraw from the EU because the relevant provisions do not exclude a possibility that agreement on withdrawal can be reached before that period ends. Withdrawal procedure thus ensures that the rights of those persons that have already benefited from the possibilities provided by the EU (for instance, free circulation of goods and services) are observed and respected. The right of the Member States to withdraw from the EU, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, does not infringe the contents of Article 2 of the Satversme;
- The applicants also claimed that the EU is gradually transforming into a state or a federal state. They noted that along with entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a single European people will be created. The Constitutional Court established that there are no such provisions in the Lisbon Treaty that would support the claim that the EU is becoming a state; moreover, the peoples of the EU Member States have not claimed to exercise their rights to self-determination within the EU. On contrary, the Treaty notes that the Union shall respect the national identities and sovereignty of the Member States. The reference is made even stronger if compared to the existing treaties.
- Lisbon Treaty states that the Union shall respect the fundamental constitutional structures of the Member States ensuring territorial integrity of the States, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State. Any amendments in the EU founding treaties will be made only if all Member States will reach an agreement to that effect or by reaching a compromise solution. Therefore, the people of Latvia will not loose their rights to object, directly or through their legitimate representatives, to any amendments within the EU that would be contrary to the Satversme or the interests of Latvia;
- Transfer of several competencies to the EU shall not be regarded as limitation of sovereignty but rather as its exercise in order to achieve the objectives set forth in the EU treaties which are not contrary to the values and interests enshrined in the Satversme. Moreover, there is no reason to state that the Lisbon Treaty provides for transfer of new exclusive competencies to the EU. The list of competencies in the Treaty will lead to more transparent work of the EU, namely, it merely simplifies, reorganizes and concretizes the situation which existed upon Latvian accession rather than changes it;
- EU membership means that Latvia has no absolute rights to block any decision that is made within the EU. Neither Latvia, nor other Member States have had such rights when joining the EU. Although the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the amendments in decision-making procedure in several sectors by replacing unanimity with qualified majority procedure, possible reduction of direct influence of Latvia in EU institutions shall be seen in the context with improvements of the direct influence of Latvia. For instance, the role of national parliaments will increase and there will be the right of the EU citizens to come up with legislative initiative;
- The applicants have noted that public was not sufficiently informed about the Lisbon Treaty. However, the lack of information about the Lisbon Treaty cannot be regarded as breach or possible infringement of the principle of sovereignty.
The fourth part of Article 68 of the Satversme provides: “Substantial changes in the terms regarding the membership of Latvia in the European Union shall be decided by a national referendum if such referendum is requested by at least one-half of the members of the Saeima.” None of the methods of interpretation allows to conclude that the fourth part of Article 68 of the Satversme would place an obligation for the members of the Saeima (Parliament) to initiate referendum in cases of substantial changes in the terms of the membership of Latvia in the EU. A national referendum is not mandatory and the members of the Saeima have the choice whether to initiate the referendum concerning a question of European integration. Individuals cannot claim for setting of a procedure they would prefer but which is not provided in existing law. Therefore, neither the procedure established in Article 68 of the Satversme, nor the rights of the applicants provided by Article 101 of the Satversme have been breached.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court established that none of the norms of the Treaty of Lisbon has infringed the principle of sovereignty of the people enshrined in Article 2 of the Satversme, and it also concluded that the law on ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon complies with article 101 of the Satversme.
The Judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. It comes into force at the moment of announcement. It shall be published in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2008-35-01