A case initiated with respect to norms of Immigration Law, which define the procedure for contesting and reviewing a decision on including a person in the list of those foreigners who are prohibited from entering the Republic of Latvia
On 17 December 2019, the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norms
Pursuant to Section 61 (8) of Immigration Law, if the Minister for the Interior has taken the decision to include a person in the list of foreigners for whom entry into the Republic of Latvia is prohibited, on the basis of information acquired by national security institutions as a result of intelligence or counter-intelligence operations, it may be appealed to the Prosecutor General, whose decision is final.
Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law provides:
“The institution, which took the decision to include a foreigner in the list, determining a period of time for entry ban, which exceeds three years, shall review the decision taken every three years from the day when the relevant decision was taken and, if the necessity to include the foreigner in the list for the relevant period of time no longer exists, the decision to reduce the time period for prohibition or to revoke the entry ban shall be taken.”
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia:
“Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis of an application submitted by Igor Lakatosh. On 6 April 2016, the Minister for the Interior took the decision to include him in the list of those foreigners for whom entry into the Republic of Latvia was prohibited for an undetermined period of time. On 9 May 2019, in turn, the decision was taken to leave the previous decision by the Minister for the Interior in force. The Applicant appealed against the decision to the Prosecutor General, who dismissed the complaint. Pursuant to Section 61 (8) of Immigration Law, the Prosecutor’s General decision is final.
The Applicant believes that the contested norms deny him the right to a fair trial, defined in the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme. It is maintained that the fact that the final decisions is adopted by the Prosecutor General rather than a court does not create the assurance that a person would have the possibility to defend his rights in case of being included in the list of foreigners for whom entry in the Republic of Latvia is prohibited without grounds. A review by the Prosecutor General cannot be seen as an effective legal remedy that could replace judicial review. Moreover, it is alleged that criteria for reviewing or revoking the Minister’s for the Interior have not been included in Immigration Law.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 17 February 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 17 May 2020. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after it has been prepared.
Linked case: 2019-35-01