A judgment in the case on provisions regarding renewal of driving licence has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-40-03 “On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 40 of March 2007 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 173 “Procedures for the Acquisition of Driver Qualification, Procedures for the Acquisition and Renewal of the Right to Drive a Vehicle and Procedures for the Issuance, Change and Renewal of Driving License” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 64 of the Satversme provides that the Saeima, and also the people, shall have the right to legislate in accordance with the procedures and to the extent provided for by the Satversme. The contested norm that was effective before 31 December 2009 provides the following: a person shall have the duty to pass a theoretical and driving examination to obtain driving license if it he or she has been deprived of it for the term of one year or more.
The case has been initiated based on an application submitted by the Administrative Case Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court. It has been indicated in the application that the contested norm has been adopted in breach with the authority included in the Road Traffic Law, namely, no authority of the Cabinet of Ministers granted by the legislator to establish that a person would have the duty to pass an examination to recover his or her driving license follow from the contested norm.
The Constitutional Court has indicated that authority granted by the legislator to the executive power must be understood not only as one particular laconic legal norm. Authority, in fact, follows from the essence and purpose of the law.
The Court ruled that a person having committed substantial road traffic offences, in the result of which he or she has been deprived of driving licence, cannot be regarded as a qualified driver of a vehicle. Consequently, a person has to again pass respective examination for him or her to prove the qualification. The legislator has defined the purpose of the Road Traffic Law clearly enough, whilst elaboration of procedure for obtaining qualification of a driver was commissioned to the Cabinet of Ministers. Consequently, by adopting the contested norm, the Cabinet of Ministers, has acted within the limits of authority granted to it; consequently, the contested norm does comply with Article 64 of the Satversme.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
Linked case: 2010-40-03