The Constitutional Court initiated a case on a norm of the Education Law
On 9 May 2012, the First Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 50 (1) of the Education Law with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia[1]”.
Contested Norm
Section 50 (1) of the Education Law provides that a person who has been punished for an intentional crime and has not been rehabilitated may not work as teachers.
The Facts
The Applicant Mr Leons Cēbergs, based on the Contested Norm, was released from his position of the school principle. The claim on his restoration to the office was rejected in all three court instances.
The Applicant holds that the Contested Norm infringes his right to freely choose profession established in the Satversme and is non-proportional. Moreover, the scope of the Contested Norm is very broad because it encompasses all criminal delinquencies that have been done on purpose, for instance, in the case of the Applicant – providing false declaration in State officials’ income declaration.
Legal Proceedings
The Saeima [Parliament] was asked to provide, before 9 July 2012, a reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation thereof.
The term of preparation of the case is 9 July 2012.
[1] Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia “ Everyone has the right to freely choose their employment and workplace according to their abilities and qualifications. Forced labour is prohibited. Participation in the relief of disasters and their effects, and work pursuant to a court order shall not be deemed forced labour.”
Linked case: 2012-11-01