Search

On Compliance of the Words “Defendant, Accused or Suspect” of Para 4 of Section 14(1) of Law “On the Insolvency of Enterprises and Companies” (in the Wording, which was in Effect till June 15, 2005) with Articles 92 and 106 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled to declare the words ”defendant, accused or suspect”, incorporated in the norm of Section 14 ( Item 4 of the first Part) of the Law ”On the Insolvency of Undertakings and Companies” (in the wording which was in effect till June 15, 2005) as conformable with Articles 92 and 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.

On Compliance of the Note to Section 98 of Land Register Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2005-18-01

On Compliance of Law of 9 June 2005 "Amendments to the Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme

Combined case: 2005-12-0103

On Compliance of the Words “and Has Been Living in the Republic of Latvia not less than 60 Months, the Last 12 Months of which Continuously” ,of Para 2 of Section 4 (5) of Law on State Social Allowances with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled to declare the words ”and has been living in the Republic of Latvia not less than 60 months, the last 12 months of which continuously”, which are incorporated in Section 4 (Item 2 of the fifth Part) of the Law on State Social Allowances, as unconformable with Section 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from January 1, 2003.

On Compliance of the Words ”in Paragraph Three” Included in the Fourth Paragraph of Section 449 of Civil Procedure Law and Note to Section 98 of Land Register Law with Section 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the words ”and in the third Paragraph”, included in Section 449 (the fourth Paragraph) and Nota Bene of Section 98 of the Land Book Law as unconformable with Section 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from July 1, 2006.
2. To determine that till July 1, 2006 in the category of these cases the general principle of civil procedural rights, which has been fixed in Section 43 (the fourth Paragraph) and Section 458 (the fourth Paragraph) of the Civil Procedure Law, shall be applied by procedural analogy.
3. To determine that the submitter of the constitutional complaint – Oļegs Kožečenkovs – experiences the right of appealing against the Civil Court Panel of the Supreme Court February 10, 2005 resolution and request to completely or partly exempt him from the payment of the State duty.

On Compliance of the Words “to Mail Letters”, Included in Section 74 (1) of Latvian Sentence Execution Code with Articles 89, 92 and 104 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the words ”to mail letters”, incorporated in the first part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty Execution Code as conformable with Articles 89, 92 and 104 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.
2. The term ”letters”, included in the first part of Section 74 of the Latvian Penalty execution Code shall be interpreted in a narrow meaning – as ”letters to private persons”.

On Compliance of Section 13 of December 20, 2004 Law “Amendments to the Law “On Residential Tenancy”” with Articles 1, 91 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Section 13 of December 20, 2004 Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Residential Tenancy” in the part on Amendments to Paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On Residential Tenancy” as unconformable with Sections 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and invalid as of January 1, 2007.

On Compliance of Annex 1 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 9 April 2002 No.155 "Regulations on Norms Regarding Nourishment and Material Provision of Everyday Needs of Sentenced Persons" with Article 111 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

On Compliance of Para 15 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pensions with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2005-08-01

On Compliance of Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law and Para 5 and Para 6 of Section 9 (1) of the Law on Elections of the Municipal Council, County Council and Parish Council with Articles 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Saeima of Republic of Latvia, as well as with Articles 25 and 26 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare that Section 5, Items 5 and 6 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 9, Items 5 and 6 of the first Paragraph of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural District Council Election Law complies with Sections 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and Sections 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. To declare that with regard to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Juris Bojārs Section 5, Item 5 of the Saeima Election Law and Section 9, Item 6 of the first Paragraph of the City Dome, Region Dome and Rural District Council are unconformable with Sections 1, 9, 91 and 101 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme as well as with Sections 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and shall lose validity from the day of publishing of the Judgment.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers November 11, 2005 Regulations No. 17 “Amendments to Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” and June 9, 2005 Law “Amendments to Law “On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers January 11, 2005 Regulations No. 17 ” Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” as unconformable with Article 81 of the Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its issuance.
2. To declare the Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”” as unconformable with Articles 1 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its adoption.
3. As concerns the submitters of the constitutional claim – Juris Jaunzems, Tatjana Čerkovska, Valentīna Leitēna and Gints Gailītis to declare the Law ”Amendments to the Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs” as null and void as of the moment of its adoption.
4. To declare that September 15, 1992 Law ”On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs” shall be in effect in the wording, which was valid till January 11, 2005 when the Cabinet of Ministers issued Regulations No. 17 ”Amendments to the Law ” On Coercive Expropriation of Real Estate for State or Public Needs”.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Combined case: 2005-03-0306

On Compliance of Para 8.3.1 of the Second part of Kuldīga District Spatial Plan of 15 December 1999 by Kuldīga District Council on Spīķi HPS, and the Spatial Plan of Vārme Parish of 20 February 2003 by Vārme Parish Council on Including the Land of Farmstead "Baloži" in the Territory of Spīķi HPS with Article 105 of the Satversme

Constitutional Court ruled:
1) to terminate the matter on the compliance of the Kuldīga District Council December 15, 1999 Spatial Plan (Part 2, Item 8.3.1.) on Spīķi HES with Article 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme;
2) to declare Kuldīga District Vārme Pagasts Council June 17, 2004 Vārme Pagasts Spatial Plan on the permitted utilization of the flooded ”Baloži” farmstead as unconformable with Section 41, Part 2 of the Law ”On Local Governments” and null and void from the moment of its acceptance.

On Compliance of the Provision of Para 1 of Section(1) of Law on State Social Allowances – “if this person is not employed (is not considered to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave” with Articles 91, 106 and 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled to declare the term, included in Section 7 (Item 1 of the First Paragraph) of the Law on State Social Allowances- ”if this person is not employed (is not considered to be an employee or self-employed person in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave”- as unconformable with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void from March 1, 2006.
As concerns the submitters of the constitutional claim – Kristīne Dupate, Aija Freimane and Aivita Putniņa – to declare the term, included in Section 7 (Item 1 of the First Paragraph) of the Law on State Social Allowances – ”if this person is not employed (is not considered to be employee or self-employed person in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance) or is employed and is on parental leave” – as unconformable with Article 110 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of March 8, 2005.

On Compliance of Ppara 15 of Law On State pensions with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Item 15 of the Pension Law Transitional Provisions as conformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.

On the Compliance of Section 11 ( 6) of Law On State Secret with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Scetion 11 (the sixth paragraph) of the Law ”On State Secret” as conformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2005-03-0306

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2005-03-0306

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Combined case: 2005-03-0306

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 22 April 2004 No.417 "Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 19 February 2002 No. 74 "On the Procedure for Remunerating for Work Sentenced Persons at Institutions for Deprivation of Liberty" with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 14 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Item 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers April 22, 2004 Regulations No. 417 ”Amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers February 19, 2002 Regulations No.74 ”The Payment Procedure for the Labour of Inmates at the Institutions of Deprivation of Liberty”” as unconformable with Article 64 of the Satversme and null and void as of the moment of its publication”.