Search
Filter results
- Years
- 9
- 45
- 45
- 66
- 38
- 25
- 35
- 31
- 25
- 36
- 21
- 26
- 21
- 75
- 117
- 48
- 26
- 43
- 25
- 26
- 23
- 21
- 17
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 5
- More
- Stages of the proceedings
- 11
- 11
- 1
- 521
- 321
- 5
- More
- Outcome of the proceedings
- 400
- 119
- 210
- More
- Type of the proceedings
- 436
- 94
- 128
- 212
- More
Combined case: 2023-04-01
On Compliance of Paragraph 58 of Transitional Provisions of the Immigration Law with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-40-01
On Compliance of Annex 7 to Cabinet Regulation No 935 of 18 December 2012, Regulations Regarding Felling of Trees in Forests”, insofar as it Reduces the Final Felling Diameter According to the Dominant Tree Species and Site Index, with Article 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph six, Section 125, Paragraph three and Section 126, Paragraph 3.1 with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Article 631, part three of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Article 124, part six, Article 125, part three and Article 126, part 3.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First and Second Sentences of Article 92 of the Constitution
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 627, Paragraphs four and five of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 124, Paragraph Six of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First and Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2022-32-01
On Compliance of Paragraph 7 of the Transitional Provisions of Citizenship Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
On Compliance of Section 4, Paragraph Three, Clauses 1 and 3, Section 4, Paragraphs Five and Nine of the Law On Ports; Paragraph 16, Sub-paragraph 2 of the Transitional Provisions, Section 11, Paragraph Two of the Law of 10 February 2022 "Amendments to the Law On Ports", as well as Section 4, Paragraph One of the Freeport of Ventspils Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 101, Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 33, Paragraph One of the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance and Section 22, Paragraphs Two and Three of the Law On Social Security with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On the compliance of Section 10, Paragraph Two, and Section 15, Paragraph One, Clause 1 of the Military Service Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and with Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Para 244 of the Cabinet Regulation of 28 September 2021 No. 662 “Epidemiological Safety Measures for the Containment of the Spread of Covid-19 Infection” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Part and the First and Second Sentence of the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
On Compliance of the Oder by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 22 March 2022 No. 1 2/2224 “On Suspending the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 15 December 2021 No. 103 “Binding Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of Riga” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Fourth Part of Article 4 and Article 8 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government”, Section 49 (1) of the law “On Local Governments” and Section 27 (3) of the Spatial Development Planning Law
On Compliance of Section 38 (2) of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Section 38, Paragraph Two of the Law “On the Time Period of Coming into Force and the Procedures for the Application of the Introduction, Parts on Inheritance Rights and Property Rights of the Renewed Civil Law of 1937 of the Republic of Latvia” with the first and third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 324 (2) of the Law “On Taxes and Fees” with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
On Temporary Additional Requirements for the Work of Members of the Saeima and Councillors of Local Government Councils” with Article 96 and the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 16 of the Advocacy Law of the Republic of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First and the Second Part of Section 38 of the Law “On the Date of Entering into Force and the Procedure of Application of Introduction and Parts of Inheritance Law and Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91, as well as the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Compliance of Section 4, Paragraph Three, Clause 1, Section 4, Paragraph Nine, Section 7, Paragraph 11 of the Law on Ports, as well as Paragraph 16, Sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Transitional Provisions with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph Two of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On the Decision of the Minister of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 16 December 2021 No. 1 2/168 "On the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 30 September 2021 No. 38 "Amendments to the Jūrmala City Council Regulation of 12 September 2017 No. 1 2/168" suspension of the Operation of the Binding Regulation No. 1 "On Entry of Vehicles into the Special Regime Zone in the Administrative Territory of the City of Jūrmala"" with Article 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and the Section 10, Paragraph three and Section 12, Paragraph one, Clause 6 of the Law "On Taxes and Fees"
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of Section 627, Paragraph four and five of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-01-01
Regarding Compliance of the Order No. 1-2/11040 of 21 December 2021 of the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development "Regarding Suspension of the Effect of Binding Regulations No. 22/2021 of the Ķekava Municipality Council dated 8 September 2021 “Regarding the Operation of Gambling at Ķekava Municipality” with Section 41, Paragraph Two, Clause 11, and Section 42, Paragraph Ten of the Law on Gambling and Lotteries, as well as with Section 49, Paragraph One of the Law On Local Governments
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of Article 38 paragraph 1 and the first and second phrase of paragraph 2 of the Law “on the entry into force and implementation arrangements for the introductory part of the re-established Civil Code of the Republic of Latvia of 1937 and the parts governing inheritance law and rights in rem” with the Articles 1 and 91, and the first and third phrase of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-10-01
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 23 of the Punishment Register Law, insofar it applies to information about an acquitted person, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 169 (6) of the Insolvency Law with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court resolved as follows:
To declare Section 169, Paragraph Six of the Insolvency Law, insofar as it relates to the provisions of Section 22, Paragraph Two, Clauses 1 and 2, as well as Section 20, Paragraph One, Clause 7, of the Insolvency Law to be compliant with Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On compliance of the number and word “10 years”, included in Para 531 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulation on Producing Electricity and Setting Prices in Producing Electrocity in Cogeneration”, and the number and word “10 years”, included in Para 68, of the Cabinet Regulation of 2 September 2020 No. 561 “Regulation on Producing Electricity, Supervision and Setting Prices in Producing Electrocity in Cogeneration”, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Complianceof Section 43 (4) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of the first and the second part of Section 38 of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and Article 91, as well as the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and compliance of Section 42 (3) of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2022-02-01
On Complinace of Section 534, 5341, 535, 536 and 537 with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of the first and the second part of Section 38, as well as of Section 42 (1) of the law “On the Date of Coming into Force and Application of the Introduction, the Chapter on Inheritance Law and the Chapter of Property Law of the Restored Civil Law of the Republic of Latvia of 1937” with Article 1 and Article 91, as well as the first and the third sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Third Part of Section 631 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2021-44-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Fifth Part of Section 627 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 56(3), 56(4) and 56(5) of the Law on Institutions of Higher Education with Articles 105, 112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 56(3), 56(4) and 56(5) of the Law on Institutions of Higher Education with Articles 105, 112 and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Section 6, Clause 2 of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils as not conforming to the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph two of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of person J, to declare Section 6, Clause 2 of the Law on the Election of Local Government Councils of the Republic of Latvia as not conforming to the first sentence of Article 101, Paragraph two of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment when the infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned occurred.
On Compliance of Section 500 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
to declare Section 500, Paragraph six of the Criminal Procedure Law compatible with Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 55 of the Law “On Judicial Power” with the First Part of Article 101 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 7 (4) of the Law on the Procedures for Holding Detained Persons” and Annex 4 to the Cabinet Regulation of 10 January 2006 No. 38 “Regulations regarding Nutritional Provision Norms and Provision Norms of Washing Products and Personal Hygiene Products for Persons Placed in a Short-term Place of Detention” with the Second Sentence of Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of the Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to Cases of Compulsory Land Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-24-01
On Compliance of Para 31 of Section 529 (1) and Section 550 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To recognise Section 529, Paragraph One, Clause 31 and Section 550, Paragraph One of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar as it relates to the time limit for submitting an appeal in particularly complex and voluminous criminal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
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
Combined case: 2021-24-03
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing Political Organisations (Parties) with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Para 2 of Section 7 1 (1) of the Law on Financing
Political Organisations (Parties) (in the wording that was in force from
1 January 2020 until 1 January 2022) 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 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 Section 82(1) of the Criminal Law in the wording which was in force from 1 April 2013 until 10 May 2016 with the first sentence of Article 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, and on the compliance of the transitional provision of the law of 21 April 2016 ‘Amendments to the Criminal Law’ with Article 1 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court resolved:
To terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2021-34-01 “On Compliance of Section 82, Paragraph One of the Criminal Law in the Wording Effective from 1 April 2013 to 10 May 2016 with the First Sentence of Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Compliance of the Transitional Provision of the Law “Amendments to the Criminal Law” of 21 April 2016 with Article 1 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On compliance of paragraph 8 of Section 4(1) of the Law on the Management of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection, paragraphs 11 and 124 of Section 1 and paragraph 45 of Section 14 of the Education Law, as well as sub-paragraph 27.1.3, paragraph 327(2) and (3) 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’ with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of paragraph 10 of Section 13(1) of the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest and of paragraph 10 of Annex 4 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 800 of 27 November 2007 ‘Internal procedure regulations of investigation prisons’ with the first sentence of Article 101 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
To recognise Section 13, Paragraph One, Clause 10 of the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest and Paragraph 10 of Annex 4 to Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 800 of 27 November 2007 “Internal Rules of Conduct of Investigation Prison” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 101 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 313(1) and (3) of the Electricity Market Law and paragraphs 21.3, 28, 30, 31, 48.4 of and Annex 3 to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 560 of 2 September 2020 ‘Regulation on the production of electricity using renewable energy sources, as well as on price determination procedures and control’ with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 105 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 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 1 June 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
Combined case: 2021-24-03
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 the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To recognise the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law as being compatible with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Construction Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and null and void as of 1 January 2023.
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.
On the compliance of Section 11(31) and Section 111(61) of the law ‘On Personal Income Tax’ with Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 242(5) with Articles 96 and 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled the following:
1. To dismiss proceedings in the case in the part concerning compliance of Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law, insofar as it establishes an absolute prohibition for a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence related to violence or threat of violence to be a guardian, regardless of expungement or setting aside of conviction, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. With regard to the persons to whom Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law has been applied and who have commenced and continue proceedings for the protection of their fundamental rights by general means for the protection of rights, to recognise Section 242, Clause 5 of the Civil Law, insofar as it establishes an absolute prohibition for a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence related to violence or threat of violence to be a guardian, regardless of expungement or setting aside of conviction, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the day of occurrence of infringement of fundamental rights of these persons.
On compliance of para 53 of part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) ‘List of public lakes and rivers’ to the Civil Law with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-63-01
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
The Constitutional Court held as follows:
1. To recognise Paragraph 88 (in the wording that was in force until 12 August 2021) and Paragraph 89 (in the wording that was in force until 24 January 2020) of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 78 of 7 February 2017 “Regulations on Natural Gas Trade and Use” as being incompatible with Articles 64 and 105 of the Satversme and Section 107, Paragraph Seven of the Energy Law of the Republic of Latvia and, with regard to persons to whom it has been or should be applied in court, as null and void from the date of issue.
2. To recognise Paragraph 88 and Paragraph 89 (in the wording that was in force from 25 January 2020 until 12 August 2021 and in the current wording), and Paragraph 891 (in the wording that was in force until 12 August 2021) of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 78 of 7 February 2017 “Regulations on Natural Gas Trade and Use” as being incompatible with Articles 64 and 105 of the Satversme and Section 107, Paragraph Seven of the Energy Law of the Republic of Latvia and, with regard to persons to whom it has been or should be applied in court, as null and void from the date of issue.
On compliance of para 56 of part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) ‘List of public lakes and rivers’ to the Civil Law with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-63-01
On compliance of sub-paragraphs 16.2, 16.5, 16.11, 16.14, 16.18, 16.19 and 16.20 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, Article 4(3), (6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-64-0106
On compliance of Annex 1 to Cabinet Regulation No 810 of 13 December 2016 on classification of offices of officials with special service ranks working in institutions of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration, insofar as it requires a Group 2.1, Level VII college director to hold a higher special service rank – colonel, with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of sub-paragraphs 27.1 and 27.3 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-64-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 10.2., 10.6., 10.7., 10.8., 10.17., 10.18., 10.21. and 10.23. “Annex to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas “Administrative Territories, Administrative Centres thereof and the Units of Territorial Division”” with Article 1 and the Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Para 34 of Part 1 of Annex I (to Section 1102) to the Civil Law “List of Public Lakes and Rivers” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of 32.1. 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 Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-43-0106
On Compliance of Sub-23.3., 23.4., 23.5., 23.6., 23.14. and 23.15 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 First Sentence of the Second Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Section 71 (3) of the Road Traffic Law with the First, Second and Third Sentence of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para 8.5., 8.7., 8.8., 8.16., 8.17., 8.19. and 8.20. 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 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 18.1., 18.1. and 18.10. 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 Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Combined case: 2020-26-0106
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
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 13.13, 13.16. and 13.20. “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, the Third and Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-51-0106
On Compliance of the Words in Para 31 of Section 1(2) “or other operating aid for the production of electricity” and the First and the Second Part of Section 304 and Para 83 of the Transitional Provisions of the Electricity Market Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-52-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 314 (1) of the Electricity Market Law with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Sub-para 23.1, 23.2., 23.8., 23.12. and 23.13. 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 as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 4 of the Law “On the Career Course of Service of Officials with Special Service Ranks Working in Institutions of the System of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prisons Administration” with Article 101 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the First Part of Section 8 and the Second and the Third Part of Section 8.1 of the Law “On Control of Aid for Commercial Activity” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”
The Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate the proceedings with regard to the compliance of Section 81(2)(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with Articles 1, 91, 92 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To terminate the proceedings with regard to the compliance of Section 8(1), Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 81(2) and Section 81(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity with the principle of separation of powers and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To declare Section 8(1), Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 81(2) and Section 81(3) of the Law on Control of Aid for Commercial Activity compliant with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second and third sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Sub-para 39.1, 39.8., 39.9., 39.12., 39.19. and 39.22. 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, Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 41.14., 41.15., 41.18., 41.22. and 41.23. “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 First Sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 13.8. and 13.9. 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 First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 31.15., 31.29. and 31.30. 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
Combined case: 2020-43-0106
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para 32.4. and 36.2. 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 and the First Sentence of the Second Part Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
On Compliance of Sub-para 11.2. 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 and the First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: 2020-41-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 19.18. and 19.20. 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 and 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
On Compliance of the Programme and Sub-programme for Increasing the Remuneration for Work to Health Care Workers of the Law “On the State Budget for 2020”, insofar they do not Envisage an Increase of the State Financing for Increasing the Remuneration for Work to Health Care Workers Set in Para 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Health Care Financing Law, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled:
To recognise the programmes and sub-programmes of the law ‘On the State Budget for 2020’ which set out the remuneration of health care workers, insofar as they do not make provision for State funding to increase the remuneration of health care workers in 2020 as set in Paragraph 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Health Care Financing Law, as being compatible with Articles 1 and 66 of the Constitution.
On Compliance of Para “c” of Article 3, Para 3 of Article 4 and Para 1 of Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention of 11 May 2011 on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence with the Preamble, Article 1, Article 99 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 4 of its Article 4 with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and its Article 14 with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Constitutional Court
held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding
compliance of Para “c” of Article 3, Para 3 of Article 4 and Para 1 of Article 12
of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence
against Women and Domestic Violence with the Preamble, Article 1, Article 99
and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and compliance of
Para 14 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating
Violence against Women and Domestic Violence with Article 112 of the
Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Para 4 of Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
as being compatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Sub-para 28.2. and 28.19. 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 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
Combined case: Nr.2020-37-0106
On Compliance of Sub-para 35.4. 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 First Part of Article 101 of the Satversme and the Sixth Part of Article 4 and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
The Constitutional Court ruled:
To terminate the legal proceedings in the case insofar as it concerns the compliance of subparagraphs 28.2, 28.19 and 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas with Article 4(3) of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
To recognise subparagraph 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being compatible with Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
To recognise subparagraph 35.4 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being incompatible with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise subparagraphs 28.2 and 28.19 of Annex “Administrative Territories, their Administrative Centres and Units of Territorial Division” to the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas as being compatible with Articles 1 and 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and with Article 4(6) and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 72 (5) of Law on the Protection of the Children’s Rights with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 6 (5) of the Law “On State Social Insurance” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 13 of the Cabinet Regulation of 27 October 2009 No. 1250 “Regulation Regarding State Fee for Registering Ownership Rights and Pledge Rights in the Land Register” with Article 91, Article 105 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Section 34 (1) of the Law “On Taxes and Duties, insofar it Envisages Calculation and Collection from the Taxpayer a Fine in the Amount of 100 Per Cent of the Underpaid Tax Due to the Budget, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court ruled:
1. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of Jānis Pīlāts and those taxpayers who have initiated and continue the process of protecting their fundamental rights using general legal remedies, to recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for engaging in economic activity after registering as a performer of economic activity but without registering as a payer of a particular tax, as being incompatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void as from the moment when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.
3. To recognise Section 34(1) of the law “On Taxes and Duties”, insofar as it, without an individual assessment, imposes a fine in the amount of 100 percent of the tax payable to the budget for a failure to submit, within 30 days after the deadline set by the tax authority, tax declarations specified in tax laws, as well as the business and accounting records requested by the tax authority, without which the tax administration officers (employees) are unable to determine the amount of tax liability, as being compatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On Compliance of Para 8 of Section 15 of the Security Guards Activity Law with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Interdiction to obtain security guard's licence for persons with alcohol dependenceOn Compliance of Para 2 and Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension” with Article 1, Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Minimum amount of old age pension II (New Cabinet regulations)Combined case: Nr.2020-07-03
On Compliance of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Prohibition to provide gambling services Covid 19Combined case: 2020-26-0106
On Compliance of Section 9 of the Law “On Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Case short name: Prohibition to provide on-line gambling services Covid 19On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 od the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gas (legal persons)Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para “c” of Para 14 of Section 1 of Value Added Tax Law, insofar it Applies to the Leasing of Land in Cases of Enforced Lease, with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First, Second and Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: VAT applied to compulsory leaseOn compliance of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the Wording that was in Force until 31 March 2013) with Article 90 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of the Transitional Provision of the Law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law” with Article 1 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Clarity and retroactive force of Criminal Law provisions on negligent storage of firearmsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 March 2013) as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the Transitional Provision of the law of 29 October 2015 “Amendments to the Criminal Law”, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law with respect to offences, which subsequently have been recognised as being criminally unpunishable, as being incompatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and with respect to persons, to which this provision, insofar it does not provide for retroactive effect of amendments to Section 236 (1) of the Criminal Law, has been applied or should be applied in court, as invalid from the moment when the violation of fundamental rights occurred.
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Recusal against a judge deciding on the initiation of Cassation proceedings (2019-23-01)On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 45 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Prohibition to meet other detaineesThe Constitutional Court held:
1) To declare the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2) With regard to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Artjoms Zablockis, to recognise the first sentence of Section 45, paragraph 5 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar as it prohibits without an individual assessment a convicted person from meeting with a family member who is serving a sentence in another prison and has received permission to temporarily leave the territory of the prison, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment of occurrence of the violation of his fundamental rights.
On Compliance of Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 42.3 (1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 of the First Part and the Second Part of Section 16 of the Law “On State Pensions” as well as Sub-para 2.2 and 2.3. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Social security benefits (II) (invalidity pension)On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 37 (4) of “Law on Governance of Capital Shares of a Public Person and Capital Companies” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Interdiction to be a board member in a State owned capital company for a convicted personOn Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 1 of the law “On Dismissal of the Riga City Council” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Dissolution of the local government of RigaOn Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 37 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Returning of a State fee in Civil proceedingsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. With respect to Jurijs Kapišņikovs, Ināra Kapišņikova and Eduards Kapišņikovs, to recognise Section 37 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as of the date when the infringement of their fundamental rights occurred.
On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Benefits for parents with preterm born childrenThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2 of Section 104 (4) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” and Section 7 (11) of “Law on State Social Allowances” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Action for a negative declarationThe Constitutional Court resolved:
To terminate legal proceedings on compliance of Section 1, Clause 14, Sub-clause “c” of the Value Added Tax Law, insofar as it applies to the leasing of land in cases of compulsory lease, with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first, second and third sentences of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia".
On Compliance of Sub-para 2.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 December 2011 No. 924 “Regulation on the Minimal Amount of the Old-age Pension”, Sub-para 2.1. of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of the Benefits” (in the wording that was in force until 31 December 2019) as well as Para 2 and Sub-para 3.2. of the Cabinet Regulation of 3 December 2019 No. 579 “Regulation on the Amount of the Minimal State Old-age Pension
Case short name: Minimum old age pension amountOn Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not Envisage Repayment of the State Fee Paid of a Notice of Appeal if the Notice of Appeal is Dismissed, with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: State fee in the case of dismissal of an appealThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 37 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage repayment of the State fee paid of a notice of appeal if the notice of appeal is dismissed due to its incompatibility with formal requirements, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Compliance of Para 98 and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016).
Combined case: 2019-37-0103
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Sub-para 18.12. of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 May 2011 No. 378 “Procedures for Advertising Medicinal Products and Procedures by Which a Medicinal Product Manufacturer is Entitled to Give Free Samples of Medicinal Products to Physicians” with Article 100 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the Third Part of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Case short name: Advertising of medicinal productsOn Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, and Para 98, Sub-para 99.2. and Para 100 of the Cabinet Regulation of 9 February 2016 No. 85 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversmeof the Republic of Latvia and 423(1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gasOn Compliance of Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002) with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Social security for persons with invalidityThe Court held:
to recognise Section 6 (2) of the Law “On State Social Insurance”(in the Wording that was in Force from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002), insofar it does not envisage subjecting persons with group I and II disabilities to disability insurance, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date it entered into force.
On Compliance of Section 61 (8) and Section 63 (7) of Immigration Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Appeal against the Entry ban adopted by the Minister of InteriorThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 61 (8) of the Immigration Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 March 2021.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the part of the case with respect to the compliance of Section 63 (7) of the Immigration Law with the first sentence of Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, on Compliance of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423(1) of the Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016), as well as Compliance of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On compliance of Section 155(1) of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Absence leave for the partner of the childs motherOn Compliance of Section 49.2 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Short term leave of a detention facility in case of a death of a relativeThe Constitutional Court held:
1) To recognise Section 492(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article96 of the Satversme oft he Republic of Latvia.
2) With respect to the submitter of the constitutional complaint Juris Krasovskis, to recognise Section 492(1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it does not envisage for sentenced persons who serve their sentences on the lowest regime for serving the sentence at a closed or partly-closed prison, to leave temporarily the territory of the institution for deprivation of liberty in connection with the death of a close relative, as being incompatible with Article96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date when the infringement on his fundamental rights occurred.
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On compliance of the programmes 03.00.00 “Higher Education”, 02.03.00 “Higher Medical Education”, 20.00.00 “Cultural Education” and sub-programme 22.02.00 “Higher Education” of the Law “On the State Budget for 2019”, insofar these do not envisage annual increase of the State-allocated financing for studies in State-founded institutions of higher education in the amount no less than 0.25 per cent of the gross domestic product, as provided for in Section 78 (7) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, with Article 1 and Article 66 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Education budgetOn Compliance of Decision No. 1/7 of 18 April 2019 by the Board of the Public Utilities Commission “Regulation on the Connection to the Natural Gas Transmission System for Biomethane Producers, Liquefied Natural Gas System Operators and Natural Gas Users” with Article 1, Article 64, Article 89 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as Section 45 (7) and Section 841 (1) of the Energy Law and the Compliance of Section 841(1) of the Energy Law with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Connection of Natural gas customers to the transmission systemOn Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 22 December 2009 No. 1605 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of the State Social Security Benefit and Funeral Benefit, Procedures for the Review thereof and Procedures for the Granting and Disbursement of Benefits” with Article 1, the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Amount of the Social security benefitsOn Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Procedure to recognise a person as needyThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the words “if its average monthly income during the last three months per each member of the family does not exceed EUR 128.06” of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 30 March 2010 No. 229 “Regulations Regarding Recognising of a Family or Person Living Separately as Needy” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.
On Compliance of Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Guaranteed minimum incomeThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2 of the Cabinet Regulation of 18 December 2012 No. 913 “Regulation on the Guaranteed Minimum Income Level” as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2021.
On Compliance of the First Part and Part 41 of Section 464 of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 464 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 316 (1) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 2 January 2004 to 31 March 2013, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Clarity of the notion "Public official" in the Criminal LawOn Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2019-21-01 “On Compliance of Section 14 (4) and Para 4 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Compensation for Damages Caused in Criminal Proceedings and Record-Keeping of Administrative Violations” with Article 1 and the Third Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” with Article 64, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of pre-school educationThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 9 of Annex 2 and Para 9 of Annex 4 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 November 2018 No. 716 “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school education” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 112, Article 114, Article 91 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016)
Combined case: 2019-10-0103
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On Compliance of the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” with Article 1 and Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Article 5 of the European Charter of Local Self Government
Case short name: Suspension of population consulation of IkšķileThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environment Protection and Regional Development of 25 April 2019 No. 1 2/59 “On Suspending the Regulation on the Opinion Poll of the Inhabitants of Ikšķile Region “Vote of Ikšķile Region”” as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 464(41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2019-13-01
On compliance of the third sentence of Section 564(7) and Section 570(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: Time limits for submitting a cassation appeal in criminal proceedingsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognises the third sentence of Section 564 (7) and Section 570 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Spatial planning of AmataThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of the Binding Regulation by the Amata Regional Council of 19 December 2018 No. 12 “The Rules on the Use and Construction in the Territory and the Graphic Part of the Spatial Plan of the Amata Region for 2014–2024 (with Amendments of 2018)” in the Part Regarding the Borders of Anna Village of Zaube Rural Municipality and the Type of Territory Use of the Immovable Property with Cadastre No. 4296 009 0047 with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 464 (41) of the Civil Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Refusal to Initiate Cassation proceedings in Civil Procedure without statement of reasonsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 464 (4 1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar it applied to the decision on the refusal to initiate cassation legal proceedings, as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1, Article 105 and Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Education in the State language in higher education institutionsThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To divide case No. 2019-12-01 into cases:
a) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and
b) case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
2. To recognise the third sentence of Section 5 (1) of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar it applies to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being compatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To recognise Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the law “On Institutions of Higher Education”, insofar these norms apply to private institutions of higher education, faculty members and students thereof, as being incompatible with Article 112 and Article 113 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.
4.To resume examination of the case “On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 5 (1), Section 56 (3) and Para 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” on its merits at a court hearing on 14 July 2020 in written procedure.
On Compliance of Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Refusal to initiate Cassation proceedings in Civil Proceedings in property disputes under 2000 eurosThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 4641 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 42.3 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force until 7 March 2016) and Para 56 and Para 58 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as of Para 87 of this Regulation with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compensation in case of violation of the rules for the use of natural gasThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to recognise Section 423 (1) of Energy Law (in the wording that was in force from 4 July 2008 until 7 March 2016) as being compatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme;
2) to recognise Para 56, Para 58 and Para 87 of the Cabinet Regulation of 16 December 2008 No. 1048 “Regulation on the Supply and Use of Natural Gas” as being incompatible with Article 64 and Article 105 of the Satversme with respect to persons, to whom these norms had been applied or should be applied in court, as of the date of their adoption.
On Compliance of Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Funding of the activities of the Financial and capital market commissionThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 2.11. of the Regulation of 2 December 2018 of the Financial and Capital Market Commission No. 198 “Regulation on Determining the Amount of Payments by the Financial and Capital Market Participants for Financing the Financial and Capital Market Commission in 2019 and for Submitting Reports” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Second Part of Article 17 and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Removal of a Member of the Parliament after consent for criminal prosecutionThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding the compliance of the second sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the second and the third sentence of Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima with the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise the first sentence of the second part of Article 17 and the first sentence of Article 19 as being incompatible with Article 5, the second sentence of Article 92 and the first sentence of Article 101 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to Juris Jurašs, void as of 31 January 2019.
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditCombined case: 2019-05-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2018-22-01
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 4 October 2018 “Amendments to the Consumer Rights Protection Law” with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Total costs of consumer creditThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 8 (23) of the Consumer Rights Protection Law as being compatible with Article 1 and Article 105 of the Satversme of Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IVCombined case: 2018-22-01
A case initiated with respect to restrictions on combining the offices of a local government’s councillor
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 4 of Section 38 (2) of the law “On Local Governments” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
A case initiated with respect to the procedure for granting the rights of an expert of the Latvian Council of Science
Case short name: Experts of Latvian Council of ScienceThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Para 3 of the Cabinet Regulation of 12 December 2017 No. 724 “Regulation on the Qualification Criteria of the Experts of the Latvian Council of Science, Establishing of Experts’ Committees and Organising of the Work thereof” and the decision of 15 January 2018 by the Latvian Council of Science No. 19-1-1 “The Procedure for Granting the Rights of an Expert of the Latvian Council of Science” with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law provides that the adopter may not be a person, who has been punished for criminal offences related to violence of threatening of violence, regardless of extinguishing of the criminal record or removal thereof.
Case short name: Adoption banThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) with respect to persons, who have started defending their rights by general legal remedies, to recongise Para 1 of Section 163 (4) of the Civil Law, insofar it establishes an absolute prohibition for persons, who submit an application for adoption of his or her spouse’s child, as being incompatible with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment when it was applied to these persons by the Orphan’s Court.
On Compliance of Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter – the Code) establishes the regime for serving the sentence in closed prisons, inter alia, that men, who have been sentenced to the deprivation of liberty for committing a serious or a particularly serious crime, serve the sentence in a closed prison.
Case short name: Regime of penalty execution for menThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 50.4 of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar the differential treatment of convicted men established in it lacks objective and reasonable grounds, as being incompatible with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 May 2021.
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” provides: “Upon receiving the permission of the administration of the institution for deprivation of liberty, the sentenced persons may use in cells and common use premises during the period set in the daily regime their personal radio-broadcast receivers, television sets and video games attached to them. It is allowed to use personal fridges and electric kettles for storing and preparing food purchased from the store of the institution for deprivation of liberty.”
Case short name: Surveillance of the correspondence of the detaineesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 28 (2) of the law “On the Procedure for Holding under Arrest”, in the wording that was in force until 2 January 2018, insofar it envisages control of correspondence for the whole duration of arrest without an individual assessment of circumstances and without an identified threat to other persons’ rights or public security, as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme and with respect to persons, to whom this norm had been applied and who have begun defending their rights in the framework of an administrative procedure but with respect to whom the administrative proceedings have not been concluded yet, as void as of the moment when the infringement on the rights of these persons occurred.
On Compliance of Para 40 in the Cabinet Regulation of 30 May 2006 No. 423 “The Internal Regulations of an Institution for Deprivation of Liberty” with Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Items allowed in the detention facilitiesThe Constitutional Court decided:
1. To declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his or her studies in order to acquire higher level education, as incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia.
2. In respect of the Applicant Ansis Ataols Bērziņš, to declare Paragraph 40 of Cabinet Regulation No 423 of 30 May 2006, Internal Rules of Procedure of the Prison, insofar as it does not provide for the right of the administration of a prison to decide on granting permission for a convicted person to use aids to continue his studies in order to acquire higher level education, to be incompatible with Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the moment of the infringement of his fundamental rights.
On Compliance of Section 1(1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with Article 1, the First Sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IIIThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 9 (11) of the Education Law as being compatible with Article 1, the second sentence of Article 91, the first sentence of Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of Section 4 (1) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances”, insofar these Apply to Remuneration for Performing the Duties of a Guardian, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Benefits for the legal guardian residing abroadThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the words “and who permanently reside in the territory of Latvia” of Section 4 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019) and Para 2 of Section 20 (1) of “Law on State Social Allowances” (in the wording that was in force until 6 March 2019), insofar these apply to performance of the duties of a guardian, as being incompatible with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void with respect to persons, to whom these legal norms had been applied or would have to be applied in the framework of administrative proceedings and who have begun to defend their fundamental rights in the framework of administrative proceedings, as of the moment when the infringement on the fundamental rights of these persons occurred.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 27 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IIThe Constitutional Court decided
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-20-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 2 (5) and the First Sentence of Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Para 100 and Para 139 of the Binding Regulation of the Ventspils City Council of 2 March 2012 No. 9 “Ventspils Free Port Rules” with Article 64 and the First and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme
Case short name: Cargo evaporationsOn Compliance of Section 141 (2) of the Road Traffic Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Access to information from the National vehicle and driver information systemThe Constitutional Court decided:
to declare Section 14.1(2) of the Road Traffic Law, insofar as it stipulates that information on the penalty points imposed for road traffic offences is generally accessible information, to be incompatible with Article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and void from the date of entering into force of the Judgment.
On Compliance of Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Gambling establishments in the historic centre of RigaThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 459 of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 7 February 2006 No. 38 “Regulation on the Use of and Construction in the Territory of the Historical Centre of Riga and the Protective Zone Thereof” as being compatible with the First, the Second and the Third Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 91, Para 92, Para 98 and Para 99, and Para 2 of Annex 9 of the Cabinet Regulation of 10 March 2009 No. 221 “Regulations Regarding Electricity Production and Price Determination upon Production of Electricity in Cogeneration” and of the last sentence of Para 63. 8, Para 106, Para 107, Para 113 and Para 114, and Para 2 of Annex 10 with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Overcompensation calculation for the mandatory procurement of electricityOn Compliance of Section 27 (5) and Section 30 (4) of the Law “On Institutions of Higher Education” with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Employment contracts for the academic personnel IOn Compliance of Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Overtime work for persons employed in the Prisons AdministrationThe Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise Para 1 of Section 14 (71) of the law “Remuneration of Officials of State and Local Government Authorities” as void as of the moment when a person’s fundamental rights were infringed upon with respect to all persons, who, to defend their rights, have turned to a court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings in the court have not been completed yet, as well as to such persons, who, to defend their rights have turned to the court in the procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings already have been completed.
On Compliance of Para 4 and Para 5 of the Cabinet Regulation of 21 April 1998 No. 139 “Regulation on the Latvian Building Standard LBN 205 97 “The Standards of Designing Masonry and Reinforced Masonry Constructions”” with Article 90 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Access to standards for constructionOn Compliance of the First Part of Section 1, the Words of the Second Part of Section 1 “on the level of pre-school education and basic education, abiding by the provisions of Section 41 of this Law”, the words of the First Part of Section 3 “primary education” and Section 2 of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the General Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91, Article 112 and Article 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Language of education IIOn Compliance of Para 1 and Para 2 of Section 3 (92) of the law “On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Public access to the information concerning the amount of remuneration of state officials and employeesOn Compliance of Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the Wording that was in Force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, with Article 90 and the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and of Sub-para ”e” of Annex 10A905 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the Wording that was in Force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, with the Second Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Criminal liability for the violation of rules on the circulation of goods of strategic significanceThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 2371 (2) of the Criminal Law, in the wording that was in force from 1 April 2013 to 1 December 2015, as being compatible with Article 90 and the second sentence of Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia;
to recognise sub-para “e” of section 10A905 of the Annex to the Cabinet Regulation No. 645 of 25 September 2007 “Regulation on the National List of Goods and Services of Strategic Significance”, in the wording that was in force from 28 November 2009 to 23 January 2014, as being compatible with the second sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Eighth Part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation” with Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Storage of seized goodsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the eighth part of Section 257 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, in the wording that was in force until 4 July 2018, and Para 74 of the Cabinet Regulation of 7 December 2010 No.1098 “Regulation on Handling of Property and Documents Removed in a Case of Administrative Violation , insofar the obligation was derived from them for a person, who had been made administratively liable, to cover the expenditures of storing the property removed in the case of administrative violation until the moment when the decision of making this person administratively liable became enforceable, as being compatible with Article 105 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 18 and Para 20 of the Binding Regulation of the Jūrmala City Council of 4 September 2014 No. 27 “Regulation on the Operations and Maintenance of the Municipal Cemeteries of Jūrmala City” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Rental payment for a graveOn Suspending Para 1, in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” with Section 49 of the Law “On Local Governments”
Case short name: Parents' obligation to make a partial payment for the catering costs for childrenThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Order by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development of 26 September 2017 No. 1-2/7346 “On Suspending Sub-para 1.3., in the part determining catering costs (parents’ payment) in the special pre-school institutions of education, and suspending Para 7 of the Decision by the Rēzekne City Council of 22 December 2016 No. 1872 “On Determining the Catering Costs in the Municipal Institutions of Education of Rēzekne and Approving the Mark-up” (minutes No. 103, Para 13) as being compatible with Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”.
On Compliance of Section 12 (1) of the Law “On State Social Allowances” and Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work “ with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Transportation benefits for persons with disabilitiesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 12 (1) of the law “On State Social Allowance” as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme;
to recognise Annex 9 to the Cabinet Regulation of 23 December 2014 Nr. 805 “Regulations Regarding the Criteria, Time Periods and Procedures Determining Predictable Disability, Disability, and the Loss of Ability to Work”, insofar it does not envisage the granting of the transport mobility to a disabled person with restricted mobility, who has mental health disorders, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the date of its adoption.
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Combined case: 2018-01-01
On Compliance of Section 7 (3) of the Law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it does no Provide for Cessation of the Duty to Pay Additional Immovable Property Tax Rate for Agricultural Land that is not being Farmed, with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 7 (3) of the law “On Immoveable Property Tax”, insofar it did no provide for cessation of the duty to pay additional immovable property tax rate for agricultural land that was not being farmed as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-34-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-34-01
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Administrative Violations Procedure - AppealThe Constitutional Court held:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2018-01-01 “On Compliance of the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Sub-para 3.2.1. of the Binding Regulation of the Riga City Council of 9 June 2015 No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 Nr. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” with Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 31 and Para 15 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 November 2013 No. 1268 “Regulation on the Functioning of the Treatment Risk Fund” as being compatible with Article 64 of the Satversme.
On compliance of the Order of 1 August 2017 by the Minister for the Environmental Protection and Regional Development (hereinafter also – the Minister) No. 1-13/6038 “On suspending Para 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of 16 June 2017 by the Salaspils Regional Council “On Establishment of the Standing Regional Committees and Election of Members thereof” (Minutes No. 12, § 4)” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and Section 49 of the law “On Local Governments”
Case short name: Local Governments' Standing CommitteesOn compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Section 26 (1), the First Sentence of Para 12 of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they Set the Obligation to Indicate in the Statement of Claim the Declared Place of Residence of the Defendant, with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 26 (1), the first sentence of Para 12of Section 128(2) and Para 6 of Section 132 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law, insofar they set the obligation to indicate in the statement of claim the declared place of residence of the defendant as being compatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Para 31 of the Binding Regulation of 9 June 2015 of the Riga City Council No. 148 “On the Real Estate Tax in Riga” with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and the First Part of Article 18 and the First Part of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case short name: The Real Estate Tax and ForeignersOn Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.
The judgement will be published in the official journal “Latvijas Vēstnesis” within the term set in Section 33 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law.
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-17-01
On Compliance of Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Restrictions on the Voting Rights IIIThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 6 of Section 5 of The Saeima Election Law as being compatible with Article 1, Article 9 and Article 91 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and is not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 213 and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2016-16-01
On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Refusal to Initiate Cassation Legal Proceedings in Criminal ProcedureThe Constitutional Court held:
1. to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. with respect to the applicant, to recognise the second and third part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it does not envisage that in the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings reasoning must be provided, as being void as of the moment when the violation of his fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force at the moment of its publication.
On Compliance of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 289.20 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-16-01
On Compliance of Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: The Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance (Subrogation Claim)The Constitutional Court held :
to recognise Sub-para “d” of Para 1 of Section 41(1) of Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Owners of Motor Vehicles Law (in the wording that was in force from 1 November 2007 to 15 December 2017) as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and, with respect to persons, to whom it has been applied in court or should be applied in court in legal proceedings that already have been initiated, becomes invalid as of the moment when the infringement upon the fundamental rights of these persons occurred..
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.
On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Official Secrets (Industrial Security Certificate)The Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in the case No. 2017‑20‑0103 “On Compliance of the Sixth and the Eighth Sentence of Section 7(5) of the Law “On Official Secrets” with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and of the Second Sentence of Para 12 of the Cabinet Regulation of 23 May 2006 No. 412 “Procedure of Applying for, Granting, Registering, Using, Changing the Category of or Annulment of an Industrial Security Certificate” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: Mitigation of the Regime for Serving a SentenceThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-19-01 “On Compliance of Section 5021(5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia, insofar it Applies to a Decision to Refuse Mitigating the Regime for Serving a Sentence, with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On compliance of Section 7(2) and Section 8(4) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and on compliance of Section 7(3) of the Law on Religious Organisations with Articles 91, 99 and 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: ChurchesThe Constitutional Court held:
1. To recognise Section 7 (2) of the Law on Religious Organisations, insofar it does not envisage to the congregations, which are commencing their activities in the Republic of Latvia and are not affiliated with the religious associations (churches) that are already registered in the state, the right to establish a religious organisation (church) before the re-registration term of ten years has expired, as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To recognise Section 7 (3) and Section 8 (4) of the Law on Religious Organisations as being incompatible with Article 99 and Article 102 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On compliance of Section 1 of the law “Amendments to the Law on Privatisation of State and Local Government Residential Houses” adopted on 1 June 2017, and of the law “Amendments to the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia” adopted on 22 June 2017, with Articles 1 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Compulsory Lease IVThe Constitutional Court ruled to recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme and void as of 1 May 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of its pronouncement.
On Compliance of Section 213 and of the Fifth and the Seventh Part of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
Case short name: The Administrative Violations Code - the Court's Objectivity and AppealThe Constitutional Court has ruled:
1. to recognise Section 213 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;
2. to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether the initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from 30 November 2018;
3. with regard to the applicant Alvis Hāzis, to recognise parts five and seven of Section 28920 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as they do not envisage the right to request the recusal of the appellate court judges who decide whether initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case should be refused, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the day of publication of this judgment;
4. to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage an obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia;
5. with regard to the applicants Aleksejs Stepanovs, Alvis Hāzis, Raimonds Bētiņš, Mārtiņš Kalniņs and the limited liability company “Alcamo”, as well as the individuals who, for protection of their fundamental rights, applied to the Constitutional Court before the day of coming into force of this judgment, to recognise Section 28920(7) of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code, insofar as it does not envisage the obligation for the court to include reasoning in a decision to refuse initiation of appellate proceedings in an administrative violation case, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and invalid from the moment the infringement of a corresponding applicant’s fundamental rights occurred.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 531 (7) of Medical Treatment Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Doctors' Overtime WorkThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 31 of the Transitional Provisions of Medical Treatment Law as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force at the moment of pronouncement thereof.
On compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2014 No. 16 “Procedure for Noise Assessment and Management” with Para 7 of Section 2 and Section 181 (3) of law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, as well as of Sub-para 2.4 of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and motor sports events, which are held at open auto or motor racing track located in a populated place (town or village) and for the organisation of which a permit for organising public events has been issued in accordance with the procedure established by Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events, with Para 7 of Section 2 of the law “On Pollution” and Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2017-02-03
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Prosecutors' SalariesThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in case No. 2017-13-01 “On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On compliance of Part 123 and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar as they restrict the right to have tax overpayment refunded within a reasonable term, with the first, second and third sentence of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Refund of Overpaid VATThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
respect to all persons, to whom the contested norms had been applied and who had begun protecting their rights in the procedure established by the Administrative Procedure Law and with respect to which the administrative proceedings had not been concluded yet, to recognise Part 123and Part 125 of Section 12 of the Law “On Value Added Tax” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012), insofar they did not ensure that the over-paid VAT was returned to the taxpayer within a reasonable term, as being incompatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment they entered into force.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it will enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 91 of the Cabinet Regulation of 17 June 2014 No. 350 “Procedure for Evaluating Professional Activities of Teachers” with Article 1, 64 and 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and with the First and the Third Part of Section 491 of Education Law, and of Para 27 of the Cabinet Regulation of 5 July 2016 No. 445 “Regulation on Remuneration for Teachers’ Work” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Evaluation of TeachersThe Constitutional Court decided to recognise Para 91 of Regulation No. 350 and Para 27 of Regulation No. 445 as being incompatible with Article 1 and Article 64 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and void as of the moment of their adoption.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal; it will enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 629 (5) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and on Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 631 (3) of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Accessibility of Case Materials and the Appealability of a DecisionThe Constitutional Court held:
To recognise Section 629(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent a court does not have the right to re-examine the legality and validity of the decision taken by the person directing the proceedings on a person’s right to familiarise himself with materials in the case, as being invalid with respect to IMEX PROVIDER LTD as of the moment when the infringement of fundamental rights occurred, taking into consideration the judgement by the Constitutional Court of 23 May 2017 in case No. 2016-13-01.
To recognise the second sentence of Section 631(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 104(1) of the law “On Maternity and Sickness Insurance” (in the wording that was in force from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2013) with Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Parents' Benefit (of a Self-employed Person)The Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with Article 110 of the Satversme.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day of its publication.
On compliance of Section 253(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Court's Right to Amend an Administrative Actthe Constitutional Court decided to recognise the contested norm as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On compliance of Section 50(1) of the Education Law, insofar it denies the persons who have been punished for serious or particularly serious offences the right to be evaluated and get permission to work as a teacher, with Article 106 of the Constitution of Latvia
Case short name: Teachers and Persons Punished for Severe CrimesThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Para 1 of Section 50 of Education Law, insofar as it denies a person, who has been punished for serious or particularly serious crimes, to work as a teacher, as being incompatible with Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 June 2018.
The judgement is final and not subject to appeal. The judgement shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2016-20-01
On Compliance of the Fourth and the Sixth Part of Section 30, the Fifth and the Sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the First Part of Section 51 of Education Law with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Teachers' LoyaltyThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the fourth and the sixth part of Section 30, the fifth and the sixth Part of Section 48, Para 5 of Section 50, and Para 21 of the first part of Section 51 of Education Law as being compatible with the First Sentence of Article 100 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On Compliance of Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, insofar it Applies to Moto Racing Tracks Located within a Territory, where Individual Residential Houses and High-Rise Residential Houses are Built, with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Noise in Moto and Auto Racing TracksThe Constitutional Court decided:
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” as being compatible with Section 181 (3) of the Law “On Pollution”.
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise”, as well as Sub-para 2.4. of this Regulation, insofar it applies to public auto and moto sports events which are held in open-air auto and moto racing tracks located in a populated area (city or village) and for which a permit for organising a public event has been issued in the procedure set out in the Law on Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
To recognise Para 2 of Annex 2 to the Cabinet Regulation of 7 January 2004 No. 16 “Procedure for Assessing and Managing Noise” with respect to the applicant in the administrative case No. A420346615 – Elza Freiberga – as being incompatible with Article 111 and Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the date when the infringement on her fundamental rights occurred.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it is published.
On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Signs of Street NamesThe Constitutional Court decided:
to terminate legal proceedings in the case “On Compliance of Section 18(1) and Section 21(1) of Official Language Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Judges'Salaries IVThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognised the first sentence of Section 4(9) and Section 61 (1) of “Law on Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities” as being incompatible with Article 83 and Article 107 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is valid and not subject to appeal, it enters in force on the day it is pronounced.
Combined case: 2016-16-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Para 2361 “Use of Territory and Construction Rules” of Binding Regulation No.8 of 24 March 2016 by Jūrmala City Council “On Approving the Graphic Part, Regulation on the Use of Territory and Construction in the Spatial Plan of Jūrmala City” with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Spatial Plan in Jūrmala, BulduriThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norm as being compatible with Article 115 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Para 12.1.1 and Para 60 of the Cabinet Regulation of 13 October 2015 No. 591 “Procedure in which Learners are Enrolled at and Discharged from Institutions of General Education and Special Pre-school Education Groups, as well as Moved to a Higher Form” with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Minimum Number of StudentsThe Constitutional Court ruled:
To recognise the contested norms as being incompatible with Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of the moment they were adopted.
The Judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the day it its published.
Combined case: 2016-20-01
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency AdministratorThe Court’s Findings and Decisions:
On 6 January 2017 the law “Amendments to the Insolvency Law” entered into force, by which, inter alia, Section 17 was deleted from the Insolvency Law.
Pursuant to Para 2 of Section 29 (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, legal proceedings in a case may be terminated before a judgement is pronounced by a decision of the Constitutional Court, if the contested legal form has become invalid. In assessing, whether there were grounds for terminating legal proceedings in the case, the Constitutional Court examined: 1) whether the contested norm had become invalid; and 2) whether no circumstances requiring continuation of legal proceedings were present.
The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the Insolvency Law that were currently in force did not comprise such grounds for terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate as the one that was included in the contested norm. Legal regulation on terminating the operation of an administrator’s certificate and removing an administrator from office has changed substantially. Thus, the contested norm has become invalid.
In examining, whether no circumstances existed requiring continuation of legal proceedings, the Constitutional Court assessed, whether the fact that the contested norm had become invalid was sufficient grounds for considering that the violation of a person’s fundamental rights caused by the contested norm had been eliminated.
The Constitutional Court recognised that the contested norm did not violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, since the administrative cases regarding terminating the operation of administrator’s certificates that had been issued to them had been terminated. I.e., the applicants still have valid administrators’ certificates. Thus, there are no circumstances in the case that would require continuation of legal proceedings and the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings.
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-16-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-16-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, and 6 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Legal PersonsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3 and Section 5 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Combined case: 2016-14-01
On Compliance of Section 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Law On Solidarity Tax with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme
Case short name: The Solidarity Tax - Natural PersonsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to terminate legal proceedings in the case in the part regarding compliance of Section 3, Section 5, Section 7 and Section 9 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
3) to recognise Section 6 of the law “On Solidarity Tax” as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2019.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it shall enter into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of the Fifth Part of Section 629 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Accessibility of Case MaterialsThe Constitutional Court held:
The contested norm, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme.
With respect to the limited liability company “Cell Finance”, insofar a court may not re-examine the legality and validity of a decision by the person directing proceedings on a person’s right to get acquainted with case materials in proceedings regarding criminally acquired property, the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme as of the moment when the violation of fundamental right occurred.
The Judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it has entered into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 5021 (5) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Increasing the Regime for Serving a SentenceThe Constitutional Court decided:
The recognise the contested norm, insofar it applies to a decision on increasing a sentenced prisoner’s regime for serving the sentence, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 January 2018.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and is not subject to appeal, it has entered into force on the day of its publication.
On Compliance of Section 11(4) of the Law “On State Pensions” with the First Sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old Age Pension (Retirement before the Full Retirement Age)The Constitutional Court ruled:
The contested norm, insofar it denies to a person the right to retire before reaching the full retirement age and demands establishing that the child’s disability had been recognised in accordance with criteria for granting disability status envisaged in regulatory enactments of the USSR, is to be recognised as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme.
With respect to persons, who have started protecting their rights in procedure established in the Administrative Procedure Law and to whom the contested norm is applicable, it is recognised as being invalid as of the moment of its adoption.
The judgement by the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal, it enters into force on the date of its publication.
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 22.2 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, as Practitioners of Private ProfessionsOn 6 April 2017 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-10-01 “On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 9(1) of Insolvency Law and Para 26 of Section 4(1) and Para 222 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials” with the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Pre-election Campaigning on the InternetOn 18 January 2017 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-09-01 “On Compliance of the word “the Internet” in Section 32(1) of “Pre-election Campaign Law” with Article 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Expropriation of Immovable Property (Tīnūži Road)The Constitutional Court decided to recognise law “On Compliance of Law “On Expropriation of Part of Immoveable Property “Kaktiņi” in Lēdmane Parish, Lielvārde County for Public Needs to Implement Reconstruction Project of State Road E22 in the Section Rīga (Tīnūži) – Koknese” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Bona fide AcquirersThe Constitutional Court held :
1. To recognise Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as being compatible with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
2. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 1 of Section 356(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 1, the first sentence of Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
3. To terminate legal proceedings in the case regarding compliance of Para 2 of Section 356(2) and Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On compliance of the fifth part of Section 11 and the third and fourth part of Section 13 of the law “On Official Secrets” with the first sentence of Article 92, Article 96 and the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Official SecretsThe Constitutional Court held:
1) to terminate legal proceedings in the part regarding compliance of Section 11 (5) and Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)of the law “On Official Secrets”with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
2) to recognise Section 11 (5) and Section 13 (3) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar these norms with respect to annulment of a special permit provide that the Prosecutor’s General decisions is final and not subject to appeal, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018;
3) to recognise the second sentence of Section 13(4) of the law “On Official Secrets”, insofar it provides that following adoption of the final decision on annulment of a special permit a person must be transferred immediately to a job that is not related to official secrets or legal employment (service) relations with him must be terminated,as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia;
4) to recognise words“and henceforth he or she shall be denied receipt of a special permit” in the second sentence of Section 13 (4) of the law “On Official Secrets”as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and invalid as of 1 July 2018.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.
On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Combined case: 2016-03-01
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Farmers' PensionsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006””” as being compatible with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.
On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Section 1, Section 91, Section 105 and Section 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old Age Pension (Double Pensions)On 21 October 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-03-01 “On Compliance of Para 421 of Transitional Provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” with Article 1, Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Certificate of an Insolvency AdministratorOn 23 November 2016 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on terminating legal proceedings in Case No. 2016-02-01 “On Compliance of Section 17(31) of the Insolvency Law with the First Sentence in Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
On compliance of Section 36320 (5) of the Civil Procedure Law (in the wording that was in force until 31 October 2010), insofar it denies the debtor the possibility to appeal against the decision by the court by which insolvency proceedings have been terminated without releasing the debtor from the remaining liabilities with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Appeal in Insolvency CasesOn Compliance of Section 60, Section 61 and Section 62 of the Law On Taxes and Fees with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: The Board's Liability for Late Tax PaymentsThe Constitutional Court recognised the contested norms as being compatible with the first sentence of Article 91, Article 92 and Article 105 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, Assessors of Material InvestmentsOn Compliance of the Second Sentence of the Third Part of Para 12 in the Transitional Provisions of the Law "On State Pensions", Insofar it Provides that the Old-age Pension to be Granted Instead of Service Pension May Be Granted in the Amount that is Smaller than the Service Pension Received until the Moment of Granting the Old-age Pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Old-age Pension (after a Service Pension)On 12 September 2016 the Constitutional Court decided to terminate legal proceedings in Case No. 2015-23-01 “On compliance of the second sentence of the third part of Para12 in the Transitional Provisions of the law “On State Pensions”, insofar it provides that the old-age pension to be granted instead of service pension may be granted in the amount that is smaller than the service pension received until the moment of granting the old-age pension, with Article 91 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
On Compliance of Section 7(3) of Law On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials with the First Sentence of Article 110 and the First Sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: A Judge as an Assistant to a Disabled Family MemberThe Constitutional Court decided that the contested norm is incompatible with the first sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme.
On Compliance of the Section 12 (1) of Law On State Pensions, insofar it Provides for Using an Index that is Smaller than "1" in Updating Pension Capital, and Sub-paragraph 65.2 of Transition Provisions of Law On State Pensions with the First Sentence of Article 91, Article 105 and Article 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Updating the Pension CapitalOn Compliance of Section 2 of the Law of 25 September 2014 "Amendments to Insolvency Law" and the Law of 30 October 2014 "Amendments to Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials" with Article 1 and the First Sentence of Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Case short name: Insolvency Administrators as Public Officials and, Simultaneously, AdvocatesOn Compliance of the First, Third and Fifth Part of Section 657 of Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
The Constitutional Court held:
to recognize the first, third and fifth part of Section 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar they allow that a prosecutor, who has conducted investigative activities in criminal proceedings, has supervised investigation, conducted criminal prosecution or brought public charges, decides on the issue of renewing criminal proceedings in connection with newly disclosed circumstances, as being incompatible with the first sentence in Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia and being invalid as of 1 January 2017
On Compliance of Section 5.1 of "Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law" with Article 96 of the Republic of Satversme
Case short name: The Debtors of Maintenance PaymentsThe Constitutional Court held:
to recognise Section 51 of “Maintenance Guarantee Fund Law” as being incompatible with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia” and invalid as of 1 February 2017.
The Judgement is final and not subject to appeal.