Search

2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Filter results

  • Years
  • 7
  • 47
  • 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
  • 12
  • 5
  • 3
  • 542
  • 346
  • 7
  • More
  • Outcome of the proceedings
  • 415
  • 123
  • 210
  • More
  • Type of the proceedings
  • 445
  • 103
  • 155
  • 212
  • More
Results: 915
Print
Case No 2003-11-0103
On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 20 of Law On the Handling of Weapons and Sub-para 15.1 of the Cabinet of Minister Regulations of 26 September 1995 No. 287 "Regulations on Hunting Firearms" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Jūlijs Gineitis
09.09.2003.

11.09.2003.

On Compliance of Para 3 of Section 20 of Law On the Handling of Weapons and Sub-para 15.1 of the Cabinet of Minister Regulations of 26 September 1995 No. 287 "Regulations on Hunting Firearms" with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2003-10-01
On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 83 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aina Strode
06.11.2003.

07.11.2003.

On Compliance of Para 4 of Section 83 of Civil Procedure Law with Article 92 of Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional court ruled to declare Section 83 (Item 4) of the Civil Procedure Law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the day of publishing the Judgment.

Case No 2003-09-01
On Compliance of Section 82(5) and Section 453(2) of Criminal Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Igors Bazikins
30.06.2003.

03.07.2003.

On Compliance of Section 82(5) and Section 453(2) of Criminal Procedure Law with Article 91 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2003-08-01
On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 96(2) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 89 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Inga Deržaveca
06.10.2003.

07.10.2003.

On Compliance of the First Sentence of Section 96(2) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 89 and Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 96 (the first sentence of the second part) of the Latvian Criminal Procedure law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void from March 1, 2004 if the legislator does not amend the legal regulation of the performance of advocates so that it complies with the standards of the European Union and the European Council and guarantees the right to a fair court in the full range.

Case No 2003-07-01
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Sergejs Čerņikovs
07.04.2003.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2003-03-01

Case No 2003-06-01
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Māris Sarāns
25.03.2003.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2003-03-01

Case No 2003-05-01
On Compliance of Section 271 of Criminal Law with Articles 91 and 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Sarmīte Ēlerte
29.10.2003.

30.10.2003.

On Compliance of Section 271 of Criminal Law with Articles 91 and 100 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court ruled to declare Article 271 as unconformable with Article 100 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution) and null and void as of February 1, 2004, if up to that time the legislator has not specified the range of officials, who – for performing the duties assigned to them - need the protection of the Criminal Law.

Case No 2003-04-01
On Compliance of Section 82 (5) and Section 453 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aina Strode
27.06.2003.

01.07.2003.

On Compliance of Section 82 (5) and Section 453 (2) of Civil Procedure Law with Articles 91 and 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the fifth part of Article 82 and the second part of Article 453 of the Civil Procedure Law as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void as from January 1, 2003.

Case No 2003-03-01
On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Romualds Dobrovoļskis, Māris Sarāns un Sergejs Čerņikovs
27.06.2003.

01.07.2003.

On Compliance of the Third Sentence of Section 77(7) of Latvian Criminal Procedure Code with Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Court ruled to declare Article 77 (the third sentence of the seventh part) of the Criminal Procedure Code as unconformable with Article 92 of the Satversme and null and void as of October 1, 2003 if the procedure for insurance of realization of the right of the defendant to be heard out is not determined by the law.

Case No 2003-02-0106
On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of the Radio and Television Law with Articles 89, 91, 100 and 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as with Articles 10 and 14 (in Interconnection with Article 10) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 19 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Adjudicated
8.Saeimas deputāti: Boriss Cilevičs, Jānis Jurkāns, Jānis Urbanovičs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Pāvels Maksimovs, Ivans Ribakovs, Dainis Turlais, Valērijs Karpuškins, Vladimirs Buzajevs, Anatolijs Mackevičs, Andris Tolmačovs, Sergejs Fjodorovs, Vjačeslavs Stepaņenko, Martijans Bekasovs, Aleksejs Vidavskis, Oļegs Deņisovs, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Juris Sokolovskis, Valērijs Agešins, Jakovs Pliners, Vitālijs Orlovs, Andrejs Aleksejevs, Andrejs Klementjevs un Aleksandrs Bartaševičs
05.06.2003.

06.06.2003.

On Compliance of Section 19 (5) of the Radio and Television Law with Articles 89, 91, 100 and 114 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as well as with Articles 10 and 14 (in Interconnection with Article 10) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 19 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Constitutional Court decided to declare the fifth part of Article 19 of the Radio and Television Law as unconformable with the Republic of Latvia Satversme Article 100 and null and void as of the day of the publication of the Judgment.

Case No 2003-01-01
On Compliance of Section 29(5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Edmunds Lukevics
03.01.2003.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of Section 29(5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Article 91 and Article 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2002-21-01

Case No 2002-21-01
On Compliance of Section 27 (4) and the Text of Section 28 (2) "for the Time Period until the Age of 65 Years" of Law on Institutions of Higher Education and Section 29 (5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Aldis Baums, Zigurds Markovičs un Jānis Rozenbergs
20.05.2003.

21.05.2003.

On Compliance of Section 27 (4) and the Text of Section 28 (2) "for the Time Period until the Age of 65 Years" of Law on Institutions of Higher Education and Section 29 (5) of Law On Scientific Activity with Articles 91 and 106 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the first sentence of Article 27 of the Higher School Law and the text of Article 28 (the second part) ”or for the time period until the age of 65 years” as well as Article 29 (the first sentence of the fifth part) of the Law ”On Scientific Activity” as unconformable with Article 106 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as of the date of the announcement of the Judgment.

Case No 2002-20-0103
On the Compliance of Section 11 (5) of the Law "On State Secrets" and the Cabinet of Ministers June 25, 1997 Regulations "List of Objects of State Secrets" (Chapter XIV, Para 3) with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)
Adjudicated
Andris Ternovskis
23.04.2003.

24.04.2003.

On the Compliance of Section 11 (5) of the Law "On State Secrets" and the Cabinet of Ministers June 25, 1997 Regulations "List of Objects of State Secrets" (Chapter XIV, Para 3) with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)

Constitutional Court decided to declare that Article 11 (the Fifth Part) of the Law ”On State Secrets” and the Words ”Clearance Materials”, incorporated into Chapter XIV (Item 3) of the Cabinet of Ministers June 25, 1997 Regulations No. 226 ”The List of Objects of State Secrets” Comply with Article 92 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme.

Case No 2002-19-04
On Compliance of the Decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of 30 October 2001 "On the Legal Status of the Operator of Transmission System of the State Joint Stock Company "Latvenergo" (Minutes No.53, para 44) with Section 20¹ of Energy Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
7.Saeimas deputāti: J.Stalidzāne, A.Šlesers, P.Salkazanovs, J.Leja, R.Labanovskis, E.Baldzēns, V.Lauskis, V.Lāzo, A.Kalniņš, G.Freimanis, H.Soldatjonoka, O.Grīgs, L.Bojārs, A.Barča, J.Čevers, J.Ādamsons, I.Ūdre, I.Stirāns, O.Zvejsalnieks, R.Mežeckis
04.03.2003.

06.03.2003.

On Compliance of the Decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of 30 October 2001 "On the Legal Status of the Operator of Transmission System of the State Joint Stock Company "Latvenergo" (Minutes No.53, para 44) with Section 20¹ of Energy Law and Article 1 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Case No 2002-18-01
On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 2 of The Saeima Election Law with Articles 6, 8 and 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)
Adjudicated
Armands Stendzenieks
05.03.2003.

06.03.2003.

On Compliance of Para 2 of Section 2 of The Saeima Election Law with Articles 6, 8 and 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (Constitution)

Constitutional Court decided to declare Article 2, Item 2 of the Saeima Election Law as unconformable with Articles 6 and 8 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme and null and void as from the day of publishing of the Judgment.

Case No 2002-17-0103
On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 3 of Section 12(2) and Sub-paragraphs 3.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3 of the Cabinet of Ministers 20 May, 1997 Regulations No.187 "The Procedure for the Compensation Repayment in Cash to Persons who Were Granted Compensation Certificates for the Former Landed Property in Rural Regions" with Articles 1, 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valsts Cilvēktiesību birojs
10.01.2003.

14.01.2003.

On Compliance of Para 1 and Para 3 of Section 12(2) and Sub-paragraphs 3.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3 of the Cabinet of Ministers 20 May, 1997 Regulations No.187 "The Procedure for the Compensation Repayment in Cash to Persons who Were Granted Compensation Certificates for the Former Landed Property in Rural Regions" with Articles 1, 91 and 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare Article 12, Items 1 and 2 of the second part of the Law ”On Land Privatization in Rural Regions” and the text of Sub-items 3.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3. and 3.3., namely, - ”up to December 31, 1992 have claimed compensation for land” of the Cabinet of Ministers May 20, 1997 Regulations No.187 ”The Procedure for the Compensation Repayment in Cash to Persons who were Granted Compensation Certificates for the Former Landed Property in Rural Regions” as being in conformity with Articles 91 and 105 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme””.

Case No 2002-16-03
On Compliance of Sub-para1 and Sub-para 2 of Para 8 of "Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Rates" by the Energy Supply Regulation Council (in the wording of Para 1 of Decree No. 192 by the Energy Supply Regulation Council of 19, 2000) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 5 of Law On Regulators of Public Utilities, as well as Para 5 of Section 84(5) and Para 2 of Section 85(1) of the Energy Law (in the Wording that was effective until 1 October 2001)
Adjudicated
Aleksandrs Rudišs
24.12.2002.

30.12.2002.

On Compliance of Sub-para1 and Sub-para 2 of Para 8 of "Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Rates" by the Energy Supply Regulation Council (in the wording of Para 1 of Decree No. 192 by the Energy Supply Regulation Council of 19, 2000) with Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia, Section 5 of Law On Regulators of Public Utilities, as well as Para 5 of Section 84(5) and Para 2 of Section 85(1) of the Energy Law (in the Wording that was effective until 1 October 2001)

Constitutional Court decided to declare Item 2.8, Sub-items 1 and 2 of the Energy Supply Regulation Council ”Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Rates”as conformable with Article 91 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme , Article 5 of the Law ”On Regulators of Public Services” and Articles 84 (Item 5 of the first part) and 85 (Item 2 of the first part) of the Power Industry Law””.

Case No 2002-15-01
On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pension" in the Part "from January 1, 1991" with Articles 1, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Adjudicated
Valsts Cilvektiesību birojs
23.12.2002.

24.12.2002.

On Compliance of Sub-para 1 of Para 16 of Transitional Provisions of Law On State Pension" in the Part "from January 1, 1991" with Articles 1, 91 and 109 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Constitutional Court decided to declare the text ”from January 1, 1991” of Item 16, Sub-item 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law ”On State Pensions” as unconformable with Article 91 of the Satversme and null and void as of the day of its adoption.

Case No 2002-14-04
On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Decree of August 8, 2001 No.401 "On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine" with Articles 111 and 115 of the Satversme, Section 5 and Para 1-3 of Section 6 of the Waste Management Law, Section 3 and Section11 of Law On the Environmental Impact Assessment, Section 14 and Section 17 (1) of Law on Pollution, as well as Section 11 of Law On Environmental Protection
Adjudicated
7.Saeimas deputāti: Egils Baldzēns, Pēteris Salkazanovs, Jānis Leja, Rišards Labanovkis, Boriss Rastopirkins, Miroslavs Mitrofanovs, Juris Sokolovskis, Aleksandrs Golubovs, Leons Bojārs, Jānis Jurkāns, Modris Lujāns, Jakovs Pliners, Jānis Urbanovičs, Boriss Cilevičs, Oļegs Deņisovs, Pāvels Maksimovs, Osvalds Zvejsalnieks, Andrejs Klementjevs, Oļegs Tolmačovs un Igors Solovjovs
14.02.2003.

18.02.2003.

On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Decree of August 8, 2001 No.401 "On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine" with Articles 111 and 115 of the Satversme, Section 5 and Para 1-3 of Section 6 of the Waste Management Law, Section 3 and Section11 of Law On the Environmental Impact Assessment, Section 14 and Section 17 (1) of Law on Pollution, as well as Section 11 of Law On Environmental Protection

Constitutional Court decided:
1. To terminate proceedings on the compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers August 8, 2001 Decree No. 401 ”On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine” with Article 111 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Articles 5 and 6 (Items 1-3) of the Waste Management Law as well as Articles 14 and 17 (the first part) of the Law ”On Pollution”.
2. To declare the Cabinet of Ministers August 8, 2001 Decree No. 401 ”On the Location of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Facility in Olaine” as being in conformity with Article 115 of the Republic of Latvia Satversme, Article 11 of the Law ”On Environmental Protection” and Articles 3 and 11 of the Law ”On Environmental Impact Assessment”.

Case No 2002-13-01
On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Article 6 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia
Joined
Andris Rubins
23.07.2002.
-
-
-

-

On Compliance of the Second Sentence of Section 38(1) of The Saeima Election Law with Article 6 and Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia

Combined case: 2002-08-01