Search

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 ‘Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual’ (in the wording which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held :

1. To recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable cost, related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. With respect to the limited liability company “TAVEX” and persons, who have started and continue defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which was in force from 8 May 2015 until 9 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on the respective person’s fundamental rights occurred.

3. To recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which is in force from 10 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

4. With respect to persons, who have started and continue defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 859 of 8 November 2011 “Regulation on the maximum amount of expenditure on legal aid reimbursable to a private individual” (in the wording, which is in force from 10 April 2020), insofar they do not provide for a reasonable amount of reimbursable costs related to legal aid, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement on the respective person’s fundamental rights occurred.

On compliance of paragraph 2418 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures for the containment of the spread of COVID-19 infection’ (in the wording that was in force from 7 April 2021 until 19 May 2021) with the first sentence of Article 91, the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided:

1 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 19 May 2021, insofar as it applies to a trader whose shop has been arranged on the premises of a large shopping centre and can be provided with a separate external access, and whose shop is not subject to the exceptions stipulated in this norm, as being non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

2 With regard to the LLC (SIA) “Jysk Linnen'n Furniture”, to recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 19 May 2021, insofar as it applies to a trader whose shop has been arranged on the premises of a large shopping centre and can be provided with a separate external access, and whose shop is not subject to the exceptions stipulated in this norm, as null and void as of 7 April 2021.

3 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as being compliant with the first and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

4 To recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as being non-compliant with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.

5 With regard to the LLC (SIA) “VRPB” and the LLC (SIA) “EfTEN Domina”, to recognise Paragraph 2418 of Regulation No. 360 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 June 2020 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” in the wordings effective from 7 April to 1 June 2021, insofar as it applies to the owner of a large shopping centre, as null and void as of 7 April 2021.

On compliance of Section 32(4) and (8) of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils with Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled the following:

1. To recognise Section 32, Paragraphs Four and Eight of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils, insofar as these norms deny suspects, accused or defendants who being imposed custody as a restraint measure from voting in the election of local government councils, if these persons are in a place of incarceration located beyond the territory of the electoral district in the electoral roll of which they are registered, as being incompatible with Article 101, Paragraph One and the first sentence of Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. With regard to Mr Aivars Lembergs – to recognise Section 32, Paragraphs Four and Eight of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils, insofar as these norms deny him from voting in the election of local government councils, if he is in a place of incarceration located beyond the territory of the electoral district in the electoral roll of which he is registered, as being incompatible with Article 101, Paragraph One and the first sentence of Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the moment of occurrence of infringement of his fundamental rights.

On compliance of the second sentence of Section 4441(3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording which was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held :

1. To recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021) and the second sentence of Section 431 (2), insofar these norms do not provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. With respect to “WINNER”, Ltd., undergoing liquidation, to recognise the second sentence of Section 4441 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 March 2018 until 19 April 2021), insofar it does provide for the right of a legal person governed by private law to request a court to decide on exempting it from the obligation to pay the security deposit upon submitting an ancillary complaint, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on its fundamental rights occurred.

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.1 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Articles 64 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.1 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Articles 64 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On the compliance of Section 7011(4) of the Criminal Law and Section 358(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second, and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2021-18-01

On the compliance of Section 7011(4) of the Criminal Law and Section 358(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled the following:

1. To dismiss proceedings in respect of the claim of the Joint-Stock Company under liquidation “TRASTA KOMERCBANKA” on compliance of Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

2. To dismiss proceedings in respect of the claim of ERGO TEC LLP, a merchant registered in the United Kingdom, on compliance of Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

3. To recognise Section 7011, Paragraph Four of the Criminal Law and Section 358, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On the compliance of paragraph 11 (in the wording which was in force until 31 December 2020) of Riga City Council binding regulation No 111 of 18 December 2019 ‘Procedure for granting real estate tax benefits in Riga’ with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To declare that Clause 11 of the Riga City Council Biding Regulation No 111 of 18 December 2019 “Procedures for Granting the Real Estate Tax Relief in Riga” (wording effective until 31 December 2020) does not comply with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, and as regards those persons who have commenced their right protection with general remedies, it shall be invalid from the date of its entry into force.

On the compliance of Section 10(2) and Paragraph 1 of Section 15(1) of the Military Service Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

On the compliance of Paragraph 353 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 360 of 9 June 2020 ‘Epidemiological safety measures to contain the spread of Covid-19 infection’ with the second sentence of Article 98 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court decided: to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2021-10-03 "On Compliance of Paragraph 35.3of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 9 June 2020 No. 360 "Epidemiological Security Measures to Limit the Spread of Covid-19 Infection" with the Second Sentence of Section 98 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia".

On the compliance of Section 91(2) of the Law on the Road User Charge in the wording which was in force until 30 June 2020, and of Section 14940(2) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code in the wording which was in force from 1 January 2017 until 30 June 2020 with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

On compliance of sub-paragraph 88.2 and paragraph 89 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 78 of 7 February 2017 ‘Regulations regarding the trade and use of natural gas’ (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) with Article 64 and the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Section 107(7) of the Energy Law

Combined case: 2021-03-03

On compliance of Section 14(6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities with Article 91 and Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

The Constitutional Court held:

1. To recognise Section 14 (6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities, insofar it does not provide for the right of officials with special service ranks of the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prison Administration to receive commensurate remuneration for work done on public holidays, as being incompatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2023.

2. With respect to persons, who have begun defending their fundamental rights by general legal remedies, to recognise Section 14 (6) of the Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities, insofar it does not provide for the right of officials with special service ranks of the institutions belonging to the system of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prison Administration to receive commensurate remuneration for work done on public holidays, as being incompatible with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment when the infringement of these persons’ fundamental rights occurred.