The Amendments to the Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative comply with the Satversme
On 12 February 2014 the Constitutional Court pronounced Judgement in Case No. 2013-05-01 “On the Compliance of Section 22(1) (in the wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which enters into force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initative with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The legislator must envisage a procedure that would ensure effective exercise of the electors’ right to legislative initiative
The Contested Norms
Section 9 of the Law of 8 November 2012 “Amendments to “Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative”” as regards the wording of Section 22(1) provides:
“Section 22. (1) Not fewer than one-tenth of the electorate, upon indicating their name, surname, personal identity number and the date of signing, shall have the right to submit to the Central Election Commission a fully elaborated draft law or draft amendment to the Satversme within 12 months as of the day when the draft law or the draft amendment to the Satversme has been registered with the Central Election Commission.”
Whereas Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions of “Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative” provide:
“4. Until 1 January 2015 no fewer than 30 000 voters, upon indicating their name, surname, personal identity number and the date of signing, shall have the right to submit to the Central Election Commission a fully elaborated draft law or draft amendment to the Satversme. The draft law or the draft amendment to the Satversme may be submitted within 12 days as of the day when the draft law or the draft amendment to the Satversme has been registered with the Central Election Commission. Within these 12 months each signature must be certified by a sworn notary or at the custody court, which performs notarial functions. The custody court shall set the fee for certifying the signature in connection with collection of signatures in favour of a draft law or draft amendment to the Satversme, taking into consideration the direct administrative costs of certifying a signature, however, not exceeding half of the sum, which is stipulated by the law, for certifying the authenticity of a signature at a custody court.
5. If until 1 January 2015 no fewer than 30 000 voters, upon indicating their name, surname, personal identity number and the date of signing, submit to the Central Election Commission a fully elaborated draft law or draft amendment to the Satversme, the Central Election Commission shall set a term of 21 day, during which the forms for collecting signatures, which the voters can sign, shall be accessible in places defined by the Council of each republican city or region.”
The Constitutional Court concluded that within the framework of the case under review it must assess, whether the following comply with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme:
- the contested norm, which envisages exercising the electors’ right to legislative initiative only in one stage of collecting signatures, in which no fewer than one-tenth of the electorate must sign;
- the contested transitional provisions, which envisage the necessary minimum number of electorate, who must sign in favour of the draft law in the first stage of collecting signatures. [13]
Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme: “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Article 2 of the Satversme: “The sovereign power of the State of Latvia is vested in the people of Latvia.”
The Facts
The Application was submitted by twelve members of the 11th Saeima. They express the opinion that the contested norms violate the right of the totality of citizens to participate in democratic legislative procedure. I.e., the contested norms unfoundedly raise the threshold for the signatures of the citizens having the right to vote, as the result of which the possibilities of Latvian citizens to exercise the legislative right set out in the Satversme have been significantly narrowed. The Applicant holds that such restriction is not legitimate.
Court Findings and Rulings
On the request to terminate legal proceedings
The representative of the Saeima at the court hearing requested termination of legal proceedings in the part regarding the compliance of the contested regulation with Article 2 of the Satversme, since it does not apply to the sovereignty of people. [14]
The Constitutional Court, examining this request, recognised that the principle of sovereignty of people enshrined in Article 2 of the Satversme must be assessed in interconnection with terms for its implementation, which are included in other norms of the Satversme. [14.2] The implementation of people’s sovereign power is closely connected with the democratic state order, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the Satversme. Amendments to the procedure for exercising citizens’ constitutional rights per se are not indicative of violation of the principle of people’s sovereignty. However, people can exercise their right only within the framework of a democratic procedure. A procedure for exercising electorate’s right to legislative initiative, incompatible with a democratic state order, would not comply with the principle of people’s sovereignty. [14.5]
The Constitutional Court noted that the contested norms first of all had to comply with Article 1 of the Satversme, i.e., the principle of democracy. After establishing that the contested regulation complies with Article 1 of the Satversme, it will be possible to conclude that the legislator has complied with the principle of people’s sovereignty enshrined in Article 2 of the Satversme. Thus, the Court decided to continue legal proceedings. [14.5]
On the content of the principle of democracy
The Constitutional Court recognised that the legislator has the obligation to ensure that the people’s right to legislative initiative was exercised in compliance with the principle enshrined in Article 1 of the Satversme, inter alia, the principle of democracy. If the procedure in which electorate exercises its right to legislative initiative, envisaged in the Satversme, is regulated by law, then the legislator is obliged to adopted regulation that would ensure implementation of democracy as a principle enshrined in the Satversme. Thus, the Court assessed, whether the contested norms come into collision with the principle of democracy. [15]
On the Saeima’s discretion
The Constitutional Court recognised that the Saeima had the constitutional obligation to regulate clearly the exercise of elector’s right to legislative initiative and the procedure of national referendum. However, at the same time it has the discretion to establish the procedure for exercising the electorate’s right to legislative initiative. [16] The Constitutional Court, in assessing, whether the Saeima has abided by the limits of its discretion, in this case had to establish:
- whether valid reasons for adopting the contested regulation existed;
- whether the contested norms ensure effective exercise of electorate’s right to legislative initiative. [17]
On the reasons for adopting the contested norms
The Saeima has noted a number of reasons why the legislator adopted 8 November 2012 amendments to “Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initiative” (hereinafter – also the Law), including the contested regulation. [18.1]
Firstly, the new regulation included in the Law must establish a clear and understandable procedure for exercising the electorate’s right to legislative initiative. Secondly, rational use of the state budget and private resources must be ensured. Thirdly, the citizens’ participation in the activities of the state had to be encouraged, taking into consideration the possibilities offered by contemporary technologies, i.e., the possibility to use the electronic signature. Fourthly, the new regulation was adopted to limit the possibility of advancing unprepared draft laws. Fifth, the interests of society had to be protected, preventing the possibility of using the electorate’s legislative initiative and national referendum contrary to their aims. [18.1]
The Constitutional Court recognised that the reasons due to which the legislator introduced amendments to the procedure for exercising the electorate’s right to legislative initiative, were valid. [18.3] The contested regulation simplifies the implementation of the electorate’s right to legislative initiative. It also makes the exercise of this right more accessible to electorate, for example, by introducing an additional possibility to sign in favour of draft laws. [18.1]
On effective exercise of the right to legislative initiative
The Constitutional Court noted that the legislator had to establish such legal mechanism that would allow effective exercise of the electorates right to legislative initiative. [19] The Constitutional Court established that the possibilities to sign in favour of draft law had been expanded. Inter alia, the legislator had envisaged the possibility to collect signatures in favour of draft laws also electronically in the United Portal of Sate and Municipal Services or in another online system. [19.1] It is possible to sign in favour of a draft law within a year, and this term must be recognised as being reasonable and sufficient, in order for the electorate to express its will and allowing the initiators of the draft law to collect the signatures of a least one-tenth of electorate. [19.2] The contested regulation also promotes advancing in the procedure of electorate’s right to legislative initiative draft laws that are important for electorate. The support by a sufficiently large part of electorate can be achieved by initiating laws that are important for the electorate. [19.3]
The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested Section 22(1) of the Law allowed the electorate to exercise its right to legislative initiative, established in the Satversme, effectively. [19.3] Whereas the contested transitional provisions establish a reasonable and gradual transition to the legal regulation that will come into effect on 1 January 205. [20.2]
Thus, the Constitutional Court recognised that the legislator had valid reasons to adopt the contested regulation and that it allowed effective exercise of the right to legislative initiative established in the Satversme. The contested norms comply with Article 1 of the Satversme. Since the legislator has not violated Article 1 of the Satversme, the contested regulation is not incompatible with the principle of people’s sovereignty enshrined in Article 2 of the Satversme. [21]
The Constitutional Court recognised Section 22(1) (in the wording of the Law of 8 November 2012, which enters into force on 1 January 2015) and of Para 4 and Para 5 of Transitional Provisions of the Law on National Referendums, Legislative Initiatives and European Citizens’ Initative as being compatiblewith Article 1 and Article 2 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
At the same time the Constitutional Court reminded that the legislator, abiding by the fundamental principles of a judicial state enshrined in Article 1 of the Satversme, had to consider regularly, whether the legal regulation continues to be effective and whether it should not be improved. Thus, the legislator both during the period of transition and after 1 January 2015 must monitor, whether the procedure established by the contested regulation can be implemented and whether electorate can exercise its right to legislative initiative effectively. [21]
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force.
Linked case: 2013-05-01