Address by the President of the Constitutional Court, Irēna Kucina, at the international conference dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova
Ms. Irēna KUCINA
President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
“Legal Responses to Threats Against Constitutional Values”
Honourable Madame President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova!
Distinguished Representatives of Moldova’s State Institutions, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, Esteemed Judges, Dear Colleagues, and Friends!
I
At a time when war is ongoing in Europe, the role of state institutions – including the judiciary – is changing. In the current geopolitical environment, the protection of our countries’ security, constitutional foundations, democracy, sustainability, and an inclusive society is of utmost importance. These are our common priorities. I call these constitutional values essential for the very existence of a state. In today’s new reality, courts are not only tasked with safeguarding individual rights, legal interests, and fundamental freedoms – they also play an important role in ensuring the long-term stability of democratic governance and national security.
The tools available to respond adequately to challenges threatening the existence of a state derive from our constitutions and international obligations. These serve as a “living instrument”, capable of adapting to the development of society and changing circumstances, including threats to a state’s very existence.
II
To briefly outline Latvia’s experience – even prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Latvian legal system demonstrated its capacity to respond appropriately to major public threats (such as during the Covid pandemic, in cases applying the precautionary principle in situations of uncertainty where proactive action was necessary), as well as to rising geopolitical tensions.
In today’s complex and tense context, it is essential to underline that European democracies are self-defending systems. This principle not only allows but demands that our institutions and citizens protect both the state and its democratic system from internal and external threats. In the current conditions of hybrid warfare, the range of threats against democratic states has broadened and diversified – requiring a broader and more adaptive set of countermeasures in response.
I would like to draw particular attention to several areas where the Latvian legal system has developed tools to adequately respond to threats against the state’s existence:
1. Protection of national security and constitutional identity.
A recent Constitutional Court judgment addressed restrictions limiting pre-election campaigning to the state language. The Court recognised that in the current geopolitical situation, such regulation is essential for protecting public security and democratic order, balancing these interests against political parties’ rights to freedom of expression. In this way, the legal system works to strengthen the constitutional role of the Latvian language, reduce social division, and limit the spread of hostile foreign ideologies, especially in an information space where the Russian language can serve as a channel for aggressive state narratives. Pre-election periods are especially vulnerable to information influence operations from Russia, which actively targets states holding elections, seeking to destabilise their democratic systems.
The court recognized that this regulation is not aimed against pluralism during the pre-election period. It is aimed at reducing the impact of Russia’s information influence measures. In this way, not only is the security of Latvian society and its democratic state system protected, but also the security and democracy of the whole of Europe.
2. Protection of state continuity.
In case concerning the removal of Soviet-glorifying monuments, the Constitutional Court developed its case law on the principle of state continuity – aimed at restoring historical justice and protecting the statehood established in 1918. The Court concluded that local governments, bound by this principle since the Restoration of Independence, were obliged to act in ways that remove the symbolic influence of such objects – whether through demolition or relocation to accredited museums. The Court considered the geopolitical context and recognised that increasingly active propaganda use of these objects posed a threat to Latvian statehood that had to be addressed.
3. Ensuring the political neutrality of the National Armed Forces.
The Court reviewed legislation prohibiting professional soldiers from being members of political parties. It emphasised that, given today’s geopolitical threats, the need for politically neutral armed forces is particularly acute. The restriction ensures that soldiers do not participate in political power struggles or decision-making, safeguarding their ability to carry out national defence impartially and protecting the democratic order and public security. The Court determined that the public interest in soldiers’ political neutrality outweighed the restrictions on their individual political rights.
4. Safeguarding national security through immigration policy.
In a case concerning a requirement for Russian citizens to demonstrate Latvian language proficiency to renew residence permits, the Court noted that Russian citizenship now represents a potential security risk. The state has both the right and the duty to swiftly assess the situation of Russian nationals residing in Latvia. Considering Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and its long-standing destabilising activities in the Baltic region, including information operations and propaganda, such measures are legitimate. The Court underlined that the public interest in strengthening national security and protecting the official language justifies the restrictions imposed on individual rights.
5. Protecting social peace.
The Constitutional Court has also stressed the importance of a fair and responsive social support system. In cases concerning the guaranteed minimum income, the Court highlighted the state’s duty to regularly review social assistance levels, particularly as global challenges – including rising costs of energy, basic goods, and services – increasingly affect the most vulnerable groups. Every individual is a value for Latvia, and the legislature must continuously improve a transparent, effective, and targeted social support system to maintain social unity and a sense of belonging. Ensuring that no social groups feel abandoned by the state is also a matter of national security.
III
Dear Colleagues!
Current international conference is dedicated to contemporary challenges. The cornerstone of Europe’s shared values is democracy, upheld by the rule of law. But the history of democratic collapse in most European countries during the interwar period teaches us a vital lesson: democracy cannot be taken for granted – it is fragile and must be actively protected. Today, democracy faces significant threats both from within and beyond its borders.
Democratic Ukraine is bravely resisting the military aggression of autocratic, imperialist Russia. However, non-democratic regimes seek not only military, but also intellectual and moral victories. They want the world to believe that democracy is weak and that autocracy is superior. Various tools – alongside populism, the erosion of state authority, and the cultivation of public distrust in institutions – are being employed as weapons within the framework of hybrid warfare against democratic states. We must not allow the narrative of democracy’s weakness to take hold.
The enemies of democracy have identified its most vulnerable point: the public forum, the space where public opinion is formed. Manipulation through new information technologies is a new but dangerous threat to democracy – that is no longer an anomaly but a part of our routine. New infrastructures and platforms have emerged that generate “false realities” filled with emotionally charged content designed to maximize user engagement, undermine democratic discourse.
In response to these threats, states have established legal mechanisms to defend democracy. History and present-day realities demonstrate that each generation must reaffirm the core values underpinning democracy –including the role of the judiciary, which continually shapes and strengthens the principles of self-defending democracy.
IV
In conclusion,
The principle of a self-defending democracy must adapt to changing circumstances in a flexible way. The crucial standard is the proportionality of the measures taken: the more serious the threat, the more extensive the response may be.
The primary responsibility for continually assessing the level of threat lies with the executive and the legislature. At the same time, it is for the judiciary to carefully and responsibly assess the proportionality of the chosen measures against the seriousness of the existing threat.
Thank you for your attention!
This paper was prepared with particular regard to the international conference dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.