A case initiated with respect to joining Lazdukalns un Rugāji rural municipalities to Balvi Region
On 28 September 2020, the 2nd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Sub-para 12.10. and 12.13. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1, the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government”.
The Contested Norms
Sub-para 12.10. of “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” provides that Lazdukalns rural municipality is part of Balvi Region, whereas Sub-para 12.13. provides that Rugāji rural municipality is part of Balvi Region.
The Norms of Higher Legal Force
Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereafter – the Satversme): “Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Article 101 of the Satversme: “Every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and of local government, and to hold a position in the civil service.
Local governments shall be elected by Latvian citizens and citizens of the European Union who permanently reside in Latvia. Every citizen of the European Union who permanently resides in Latvia has the right, as provided by law, to participate in the work of local governments. The working language of local governments is the Latvian language.”
The third part of Article 4 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (hereafter – the Charter) “Scope of local self-government”: “Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy.
The sixth part of Article 4 of the Charter: “Local authorities shall be consulted, insofar as possible, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them directly.”
Article 5 of the Charter “Protection of local authority boundaries”: “Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis of an application submitted by the Rugāji Regional Council. On 10 June 2020, the Saeima adopted the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas. The Annex to the Law defines the administrative territories, their administrative centres and the units of territorial division. In accordance with sub-para 12.10. and 12.13. of this Annex, Lazdukalns un Rugāji rural municipalities are part of Balvi Region.
The Council holds that Lazdukalns un Rugāji rural municipalities have been joined to Balvi Region without properly examining the possibility of maintaining these rural municipalities as independent Rugāji Region. In adopting the contested norms, the Saeima, allegedly, has violated the principles of good legislation and local government, likewise, it did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity and did not properly consult the Rugāji Regional Council and its residents. The contested norms are said to be incompatible with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme as well as with the third and the sixth part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the Charter.
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 30 November 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 1 March 2021. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after it has been prepared.
The decision on initiation of the case in Latvian is available here.
Press release in PDF available here.
Linked case: 2020-55-0106